The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Public-Private Partnerships

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the review of opportunities for public-private partnerships in Northern Ireland.

Dr Sean Farren: The Executive are today launching a consultation exercise, "Financing Our Future", based on the report of the working group on opportunities for public-private partnerships (PPPs) in Northern Ireland, which is published today. This represents a major opportunity to accelerate investment in our essential infrastructure and, hence, to meet some of the most pressing needs and opportunities for our public services. It is a very clear demonstration of the difference that we can make by taking responsibility for our own affairs and joining together through the institutions set up under the Good Friday Agreement. Without the joint efforts of the Executive in facing up to the issues on financing our future, we would face the continuing erosion of our infrastructure. We now have a major opportunity to make a difference.
The reinvestment and reform initiative launched on 2 May provides a new context for this consultation. As I shall explain more fully, we now have the opportunity to consider how best to address the infrastructure deficit with a variety of means at our disposal.
The key issue in this consultation is that we need to consider carefully what forms of finance we can and should use and what place PPPs should have in our strategy to address the deficit.
As stated in our Programme for Government, a central aim of the Executive is to secure the basis for a balanced, competitive, innovative and sustainable economy through renewed infrastructure and innovative policies. It is widely recognised that our public infrastructure has steadily deteriorated, and that has become more apparent in recent years. For decades, investment in public service infrastructure has fallen well short of meeting the needs of our community.
Good infrastructure is fundamental to the economy. Transport links, in particular, are essential to our trade and communications with the rest of the world. There are also major deficiencies in the provision of basic public services. We need to invest in hospitals, schools and colleges if we are to fulfil our fundamental responsibilities to the public. Most basically, there are major costs in providing water and sewerage services that cannot be neglected any longer. The level of resources that is routinely available to us would not be sufficient to achieve the necessary outcome. In particular, dependence alone on routine public expenditure to fund infrastructure would make it much less likely that we could secure either the range or the quality of public services that the people of Northern Ireland deserve.
The urgency of the need for a major infrastructure programme led the Executive to take three major steps. We knew that, faced with a probable investment deficit in public services infrastructure of around £6 billion over the next 10 years, it was essential to explore vigorously all the options for bridging the gap.
The Executive seek to secure the best possible outcome from the current spending review, and the detailed work on the needs and effectiveness of our programmes is central to that task. Committees will have an opportunity to contribute to the needs and effectiveness evaluation that impacts most directly on their corresponding Departments.
The First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and I pressed the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to agree an innovative approach to address the infrastructure problem. That led to the reinvestment and reform initiative, in which we secured access to new means, through the agreed borrowing power, and to the short-term package that will enable us to improve infrastructure immediately.
Last spring the Executive launched the working group on public-private partnerships, which is one means of addressing the deficit. However, we needed to assess experience with PPPs here and further afield, and to examine the options and their implications critically and thoughtfully before agreeing an Executive policy. The working group’s analysis of those issues is shown in the report.
The Executive thank the working group for producing a detailed and comprehensive report on a complex but important subject. In the main, the findings and recommendations of the review are broadly consistent with the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s earlier review, which helpfully informed the deliberations of the working group. The Committee stressed the need for an investment strategy, a central investment board, and value for money. The working group concurred with those recommendations.
There is a clear need for inclusive policy-making, and we considered that it was important to ensure that the PPP working group included representation from the public, private and voluntary sectors and trade unions. The Executive welcome and value the contributions that the representatives of those sectors made to the deliberations of the working group.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
We are especially pleased that the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the trade unions and the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) have taken the opportunity to set out in the report clear statements of their positions on the issues that it covers. Given the complexity of the issue, input was necessary from people in the public and private sectors who had expertise in, and experience of, various forms of PPP. We are grateful for the time and thought that many people have given to the project.
Although the report is the product of intensive work over several months, its publication marks the commencement of a wider consultation process. We hope that the report’s comprehensive nature will help to ensure that that consultation process is well informed. The Executive are committed to a social partnership approach to this important area of policy development, which should be consolidated. We want to ensure that the social partners, including the representatives of business, trade unions, and the voluntary and community sectors, can make an effective contribution to the forthcoming consultation.
The working group comprised a PPP forum that operated as a steering group for the review, and four focus groups considered specific aspects. Three generic focus groups considered the accommodation, infrastructure and technology sectors. They strategically assessed the scope for PPP in a range of types of projects. A fourth group — policy and organisation — considered a range of wider economic and social policy issues, as well as organisational and structural issues.
The working group’s format was such as to ensure that as wide a spectrum of views as possible was drawn on. We are pleased that the report reflects the deliberations of a group with a wide spectrum of local and international perspectives.
The key findings of the report include a helpful analysis of the scale and nature of the investment deficit and its causes, but I shall not dwell on that. We must ask how we can best address that deficit.
The working group developed a definition of PPPs to suit our circumstances, reflecting our unique social, economic and political characteristics. The definition is:
"A Public Private Partnership is generally a medium to long term relationship between the public and private sectors (including the voluntary and community sector), involving the sharing of risks and rewards and the utilisation of multi-sectoral skills, expertise and finance to deliver desired policy outcomes that are in the public interest."
The Executive welcome that definition of the concept. It embraces a wide range of possible forms of PPP, not merely those that have been used here so far. However, it specifically excludes privatisation. It is intended to be wider than the concepts of the private finance initiative (PFI) and to underline that it can include new, untried models as well as those for which there is evidence. It is sufficiently flexible to include approaches such as not-for-profit bodies, which will be considered further. The Executive support the working group’s approach, which was that policy development in that area must be done in a way that suits Northern Ireland and reflects its unique social, economic and political characteristics.
The working group also surveyed the experience to date of PPPs in Northern Ireland. The survey involved 24 projects to a total capital value of £167 million. That primarily involved the design, build, finance and operate model of project, otherwise known as DBFO. That is the model that is typically used for private finance initiatives.
Projects have been largely accommodation- or technology-based. However, the group concluded that there are significant possibilities for PPP in the infrastructure sector, with the DBFO model having the greatest potential in that sector. The working group also looked at experience of PPPs throughout the world and cited several relevant examples in the report, showing that there are lessons to be learnt from a wide variety of contexts.
The working group viewed the infrastructure and accommodation sectors as having the greatest possibilities for PPPs, with the DBFO and concession contracts having the highest potential. More generally, the working group reviewed the potential of a variety of PPP forms. Those, such as non-profit distributing bodies, which have attracted considerable interest in certain quarters, have been included and recommended for further consideration.
A further key issue considered by the working group was the crucial distinction between the financing and the funding of public services. The central point is that no model produces free infrastructure: a funding source is always needed. The issue for the consultation is to establish how best to channel public and private sector capital finance into projects to get the best value for the money that has to be paid — by one means or another.
The working group defined the word "funding" as the source of public revenue to pay for a service and "financing" as the mechanism used to raise the capital needed for investment. The main issue in considering various forms of PPPs is that they represent alternative options for financing and delivering public services. The matter of how to fund the services — how to pay for them over the period of the partnership — must also be considered.
It is important to point out that every type of infrastructure financing leads to an ongoing funding requirement. Conventional procurement means that the public sector carries the risks and rewards of ownership and must have capital tied up in asset ownership. The initial capital investment must be found from our capital departmental expenditure limit. In addition, under resource budgeting, there will be charges for depreciation and the opportunity cost of capital for most public sector assets, which will be a call on our resource departmental expenditure limit.
Similarly, the borrowing power that the Executive agreed recently with the Treasury gives us a potential means of financing investment. However, we will be required to fund the repayments from resources that we raise, above existing revenue. On that basis, for the first time, we will be able to finance assets above the departmental expenditure limit, although the cost of the depreciation of assets acquired through borrowing will still be a cost to the departmental expenditure limit.
Some forms of PPP transfer the risks and rewards of ownership to the supplier, and the public sector pays for the use of the facility through a unitary charge. In such cases the capital investment would not be a call on the departmental expenditure limit. It would be outside the public sector borrowing requirement. Furthermore, those cases would not have to be covered by additional local revenues because no public sector borrowing would be required. The key issue would be budgeting for the unitary payments from the departmental expenditure limit.
The working group emphasised that, given the scale of our deficit, funding will have to increase significantly to provide the required level of public services. The group recognised that this would present us, and our constituents, with stark choices. This means looking hard at all the possible sources of ongoing funding for essential infrastructure. Various aspects might be included.
First, there is the better use of our departmental expenditure limit, which we are seeking to maximise in the spending review process. We need a strong and clear policy of pressing for the best outcome from the Treasury and ensuring that what we have is used to best effect — driving out unnecessary costs by improving efficiency and effectiveness.
Secondly, there is access to new borrowing, supported by increased local revenue under a reformed rating system — hence the very important links between this consultation and the review of rating policy, which is ongoing and for which a public consultation will be launched in the near future.
Thirdly, there are user charges — where it is fair and appropriate that costs should fall on those using a particular service. This has been suggested, for example, as a way of funding road improvements as part of the regional transport strategy. Fourthly, there is the matter of asset disposals — so that we hold only assets that are needed for services to the public. To maximise the financing methods at our disposal, a clear funding strategy must also be determined, and that will be at the heart of our Budget planning for the years ahead.
The working group emphasised that PPPs are not the panacea to our financing and funding problems but that through them there is potential to improve efficiency, to provide value for money in service delivery and to deliver services sooner than would otherwise be possible. It is important to note that PPPs offer one route under which earlier delivery can be achieved without necessarily requiring extra revenue to be raised, as existing capital budgets could be converted to provide a stream of funding for the PPP projects.
The working group concluded that a variety of benefits could be realised from PPPs. The report shows that there is potential for better value for money and efficiency savings to be secured. Some types of PPP involve giving a supplier responsibility for lifetime asset maintenance. There is potential for service delivery to be achieved sooner than is possible under traditional procurement. Those are some of the benefits that can be achieved from the utilisation of the private sector in the finance and delivery of public services.
The working group emphasised that PPPs should be chosen only where they are deemed to provide value for money in comparison with conventional public sector procurement. Indeed, it is important to note that the Treasury allows PPP projects to proceed only where they pass the test of offering better value for money than conventional procurement, and I can assure the Assembly that my Department will continue to apply that principle here.
The working group also recognised that a range of concerns exists about PPPs, especially in relation to equality and public sector employees, and it considered those in depth. As I have said on previous occasions, such concerns are genuinely held. My own political instinct is to share such concerns, especially on employment-related issues. I will look for them to be addressed fully and carefully in any PPP approaches that we take. No one should be disadvantaged in employment conditions because a project is taken forward through the PPP route.
On equality, the working group has made some key recommendations aimed at ensuring the stringent application of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and strengthening the protection afforded to employees. The working group has also highlighted that the current investment deficit, and its impact on the quality of public service provision, results in various potential inequalities. The deficit has resulted in accessibility difficulties in public transport; difficulties in ensuring that water standards meet the required European Directives; health problems associated with failure to keep up to date with advances in technology; and inequalities in standards of accommodation in some areas of our public services.
The working group noted that failure to consider or adopt alternative investment methods might exacerbate existing inequalities and service inadequacies. PPPs could provide the potential to facilitate early additional investment in public infrastructure, facilities and services in an innovative and efficient way.
The working group calculated that, if the current investment deficit were addressed, around 7,400 jobs could be created over a 10-year period in the construction industry, thus providing both economic and social benefits. Those benefits would arise under any form of procurement, but it serves to emphasise the direct economic impact of investing in our public service infrastructure, as well as the wider social and economic benefits of high-quality public services.
The working group noted that a benefit of PPPs over conventional procurement is that the contract mechanism ensures that the service is maintained to a specified standard over the lifetime of the contract. This is guaranteed by penalty mechanisms should the private sector operator fail to deliver. Under conventional procurement, an asset immediately becomes the responsibility of the public sector, and previous Administrations under direct rule found maintenance budgets an easy target for cuts in times of financial constraint. The impact of this was not immediately apparent, but it is certainly apparent now.
The Executive recognise that the issues of equality and public sector employees, addressed in the course of the review, have been particularly complex and difficult. Furthermore, while there has been a wide consensus among the social partners participating in the review on many of the recommendations in the report, clear differences of opinion remain on some matters. Thus, certain recommendations for further research and investigation into specific issues have been made, with the ultimate aim of finding resolutions to those differences.
We are determined that all necessary steps will be taken to ensure that the development of our policy on the use of PPPs is fully in accordance with all legislative requirements, especially those concerned with equality, and that the widest possible consensus on the implementation of our policy will be secured. In that context, the proposals relating to equality set out in the review of procurement have equal application to the use of PPPs.
As I mentioned earlier, the reinvestment and reform initiative changes significantly the context in which we will consider the report of the PPP working group. The Executive have considered carefully the arrangements for publishing the report and have formulated an initial response, which we are publishing to accompany the report. I have reflected this in the terms of my statement, and the full response is attached to the copies of the statement provided to Members.
At the heart of the reinvestment and reform initiative is the decision to create a new organisation in the form of a strategic investment body. We are determined to ensure that strategic infrastructure is planned and delivered in a way that makes the most of all the means and resources available. It is intended that the strategic investment body should have the necessary expertise and resources to serve the Executive’s programme of strategic capital investment. By using the new body, the Executive hope to provide the best possible opportunities to promote the effective use of the various means available. One of the key tasks that may fall to the strategic investment body will be to advise on the appropriate funding route for particular projects.
In particular, I wish to emphasise that in the major consultation on the report, which we are launching today, we will want to include consideration of, and to hear views and comments on, the full range of possible sources of funding, and how they can best be used to address the needs of the region.
We made it clear on 2 May that to make vital improvements in infrastructure, we must examine all possible means and rally the best possible contributions from all sectors. We are convinced that no single solution – be it borrowing, PPPs or more traditional public expenditure – is likely to meet our need. Rather, different funding and procurement approaches will provide solutions in different circumstances.
Further debate and discussion on the use of public-private partnerships in our public services is necessary to ensure that the policy framework finally developed is one that attracts the maximum possible support and acceptance throughout the community and across all sectors. Accordingly, the Executive will initiate a detailed consultation process called Financing Our Future prior to taking policy decisions. That process will focus primarily on the working group’s report and recommendations.
We intend that the consultation process should be proactive and constructive, encompassing debate in the Assembly, discussions with Assembly Committees and public meetings and detailed consideration and evaluation of written submissions.
The report will be distributed to a wide range of bodies to facilitate the consultation. That will include Assembly Members, a variety of public, private and voluntary sector bodies and trade unions and those listed on all departmental equality schemes. To further the social partnership approach adopted by the working group, we want to take account of as broad a cross-section of opinion as possible.
The consultation will last for almost 18 weeks — until 20 September. That will provide the Assembly and the general public with a lengthy period in which to submit responses. It will afford representative organisations adequate time to conclude consideration on the report’s key issues, after the summer holiday period if necessary.
We intend to hold three public meetings in the middle of June at locations around Northern Ireland, so that the details and key recommendations of the report may be explained to the public. The dates and venues for those meetings will be advertised in the press in the next week or so. A panel drawn from the four sectors of the working group will help explain and examine this complex and intricate subject.
We also propose to hold a debate in the Assembly in September — towards the end of the consultation period — so that Members may comment on the report and deliberate on its key issues. We will also engage with the Committee for Finance and Personnel and the Committee of the Centre. Officials of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Department of Finance and Personnel are ready to support other Departments in giving evidence to other Committees, should they so wish it.
The new arrangements announced on 2 May have the potential to transform our prospects for dealing with the infrastructure challenge. We encourage an informed debate on how best to address those urgent matters and consider the implications of PPPs, borrowing and conventional public spending and options garnered from local or international experience.
I want the Assembly to join with me, and with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in thanking the working group for its vital contribution to tackling the issue of financing our future and for playing a full role in the consultation.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement and the working group for its report. It is an important document, and I hope that consultation will follow. We also welcome the opportunity for public consultation. It is important that we engage as wide a range of people as possible. However, I am concerned about the structure of the consultation and how we ensure that we get the required response. The location of the consultation meetings is also important.
I am also concerned about the transfer from capital funding to public-private partnerships, which is dealt with in paragraph 24 of the report. How will that be achieved? Will it be authorised by the relevant Department, by the Executive or by the strategic investment body? It is important to locate the finances for projects and determine how they are going to be repaid.

Dr Sean Farren: I wish to record my appreciation of the work of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, which prepared its own report on public-private partnerships. The valuable contribution of the Committee is acknowledged in my statement and in the working group’s report.
Final decisions on the location of the consultation seminars have not yet been taken. I welcome the advice of the Committee on the most suitable locations. The structure of the consultation has all the normal characteristics. All those with an interest are invited to make submissions. We trust that the 18-week period will be sufficient to prepare detailed and considered submissions.
The consultation seminars are intended to bring the issue as close to the general public’s attention as possible and to involve the relevant sectors represented on the working group. I hope that the general public will find time to participate in it. In the near future I shall be taking advantage of speaking opportunities to advance the debate from my Department’s point of view. I trust that Members will also contribute to that wider debate.
With regard to the decision-making mechanisms of the consultation, it is important to note that I have placed considerable emphasis on the changed context that the announcement of a new borrowing facility on 2 May has created and on the Executive’s decision to establish a strategic investment body.
The Committee for Finance and Personnel recommended that we pool the expertise in the Administration, given that 20 public-private partnership projects have been completed and several more are in the pipeline. The reinvestment and reform initiative compels us even more to pool that expertise and to take the best possible advice from the public sector and elsewhere on the most appropriate financing route to follow when we address the needs of particular projects.
Ministerial Colleagues are responsible for determining their departmental priorities. It is the responsibility of the Executive, following the advice, in this case, of the new strategic investment body, to make decisions on how finance can be raised to enable projects to proceed. Much remains to be worked out. If I detected a concern in the question, I hope that it has been allayed by my assurance that Ministers will still retain responsibility for their own priorities.

Mr David McClarty: To what extent can we aim to save money from the existing departmental expenditure limit and use those savings to service borrowings?

Dr Sean Farren: If the Member’s question relates to the new borrowing facility that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister announced on 2 May 2002, there are two elements. Initially, we have a borrowing facility of £125 million, and we will add a further £75million from our end-year flexibility. Additional finance of £70million will also be available from the Executive programme funds.
With regard to possible expenditure on infrastructure and other major investment projects, over the next two years a facility that could extend to some £270 million to service the borrowing that may be made against the £125million will come from existing revenue. No additional revenue, therefore, will need to be raised. If we move beyond the two-year period and begin to draw down from the National Loans Fund, the new and more permanent long-term facility will have to be serviced directly from the revenue streams that we control. The extent to which we determine the amount that we should borrow will be balanced by the extent to which we follow a public-private partnership route. Public-private partnership projects will be serviced by the departmental expenditure limit, so we will not need to use additional revenue from those revenue streams that we control. Therefore, judgements will be made.
It would be foolhardy to accumulate a great deal of debt through the borrowing facility and thereby impose pressures on those revenue streams that we control. The Treasury will monitor carefully the extent to which we attempt to borrow so that it can put the break on if we are foolhardy, but I do not anticipate that we will be. There must be a balance between the new borrowing facility and our access to public-private partnerships and whether we draw down from the capital stream in our departmental expenditure limit to provide the necessary funding for those projects that we decide to proceed with.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I welcome the publication of the report and the start of the consultation process. The Minister stated that he shared people’s concerns about the transfer of workers and their rights. Will he address that matter further, and will he assure us that a two-tier workforce will not emerge?

Dr Sean Farren: I trust that Members will appreciate that I went to some lengths in my statement to acknowledge the fact that concerns exist. To a certain extent I share those concerns as does the trade union movement.
The experience of public-private partnership projects in Northern Ireland has shown that 113 employees transferred to the private sector under 25 projects at a total value of £193 million. None of those workers has subsequently been made redundant, so there is no hard evidence in Northern Ireland to demonstrate that a two-tier workforce is emerging. However, we have made the point that it is necessary to monitor carefully this aspect of PPPs to ensure that workers’ rights are fully protected when contracts are being prepared. I stated earlier that no one should be disadvantaged and, to put it more positively, their rights must be upheld fully within the framework of public-private partnerships. Legislation is in place to ensure that those rights are upheld. However, if there were a need to review the legislative protection, I am sure that the Assembly would support me in doing that.

Mr Seamus Close: I welcome the Minister’s statement on this complex issue, which will have an impact on society for decades to come. His statement gave a definition of public-private partnerships. Does the Minister agree that the history of PPPs suggests a different definition, one in which the public sector carries the risks while the private sector gets the rewards? Public-private partnerships are like any borrowing — a way of getting additional capital investment at the expense of resource budgets. For those reasons they are expensive per se. They are financially expensive, and they have the potential to be expensive with regard to conditions for employees.
In his previous answer, the Minister referred to 113 employees. That is a small number, given the potential for 7,400 jobs, as mentioned in his statement. If we cast our net wider and look at the impact of public-private partnerships where they have more history — across the water, for example — we see that the impact is anything but satisfactory for employees. Does the Minister not agree that value-for-money considerations are invariably and inevitably blurred owing to the length of time these projects take? Will he give his opinion on whether the recent investment package represents better value for money than any of the current public-private partnerships of which he is aware?
The Minister challenged Members to advise him of suitable locations for public consultation. I suggest the Island complex in the new city of Lisburn as the ideal location for such public consultation.

Dr Sean Farren: Is the Member suggesting that workers in the private sector in Northern Ireland are suffering a form of Victorian working conditions and that they are not protected? The public sector engages daily with the private sector in the provision of a wide range of contracts. Our roads, schools and hospitals have been built by engaging, and signing contracts with the private sector. Is the Member suggesting that workers employed under all those contracts have not been protected adequately; that they are subject to improper conditions of employment; and that their rights are not being upheld? That seems to be the implication of his question.
In the history of the Labour movement many public sector workers took umbrage and opposed the conditions under which they had to work. It is not simply a matter of looking to the private sector to see where workers’ rights have been protected. We have to ensure that there is adequate protection for workers in the contracts — it would be totally improper for any Government Department to enter into a PPP project that did not make adequate provision for workers’ conditions of employment. If the Member has concerns, he should submit them to me and quote the evidence. I will certainly consider any hard evidence, but he makes a sweeping statement about evidence existing outside Northern Ireland. I have not seen such evidence, but if it is there, let us see it and examine it in relation to our situation.
If I understand him correctly, the Member is also criticising PPPs by implying that they store up considerable debts for future generations. We have to look at what we have stored up as a result of our failure to invest in our infrastructure: the inadequacy of some of our transport services and roads; the inadequacy of some of our schools — Members complain frequently about the failure to invest in schools and colleges; and the inadequacy of the technological equipment in our public services.
We are seeking to provide the Executive with the means of acquiring the finance necessary to fund the projects that will give us a modern infrastructure and the services associated with it. That is what people are asking us to do. I think that they will compliment us on providing them with the legacy of a modern working infrastructure, and we will be careful not to impose a burden of debt that cannot be shouldered by this or future generations.

Mr David Ervine: I thank the Minister for his statement and the delivery of the other half of Thatcherism — the first part was the disinvestment that creates the circumstances in which you do the rest, or at least the Executive seem determined to do the rest.
It is interesting that the Minister is keen to suggest that those in the public sector will be looked after and protected. They will probably belong to companies that have to be leaner and meaner. Companies will want to offer good conditions, but will they offer the same number of jobs; will those jobs be under a 12-month contract; will those jobs be without holiday pay or a pension; or will those jobs be like those in the public sector today? Of course not.
When the Minister is taking care of workers’ interests and conditions, will the same number of jobs be provided under public-private partnerships as there are now? The Minister has put forward a "frightener". Anybody who works in the public services will be deeply frightened today.

Dr Sean Farren: I remind Members that I am not launching a definitive policy document, but a consultation document. Those concerns are far off the mark in many respects. However, if the concerns that are suggested by Mr Ervine exist, they should be heard, documented, and addressed. I have made that abundantly clear. I belong to a political party that is concerned about social justice. It is concerned about ensuring that workers’ rights are upheld — [Interruption].
If the Member has something to say, perhaps he could stand up and say it so that I can hear him.

Mr Seamus Close: Are you going to put the rates up?

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Dr Sean Farren: We are not discussing the rates. There is no proposal for the rates to be increased.
Mr Ervine has raised serious issues, so let us be clear about them. I have indicated the estimated scale of jobs that could be created in the construction industry over the next 10 years. It is a sizeable number. Every one of those jobs — just like every other job in Northern Ireland’s labour market — is subject to current legislation on working conditions, payment, pension rights and all other rights to benefit. There is no suggestion or implication in anything that I have said or in the report that there will be any diminution of those rights.
I have said in response to earlier questions and in my statement, and I repeat it, that my responsibility — and I imagine that this goes for my Executive Colleagues — for contracts relating to public-private partnerships, if the Executive decide that they should advance along that particular route, is to the effect that those contracts will enshrine the full protection of workers’ rights and will satisfy not only Ministers, but also the House. That is a commitment on which I stand today, and on which I will continue to stand for the rest of my political life.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I welcome the statement. However, I share some of the concerns that have already been raised on the Floor that it may lead to short-term gain and long-term pain.
To date, my experience of public-private partnerships has not been healthy. I want to give an example of something that occurred in my constituency, South Belfast. There were rugby and hockey pitches on the site of Wellington College. Northwin Ltd moved in to develop the site. I understand that the school was built on a much smaller scale than was initially thought to be required, leaving no room for expansion. The development benefited from public land. I attended a public inquiry at which those responsible for planning control were in dispute with the Department of Education over what should have happened to that public land. As we all know, developers win such disputes. What was a piece of green land and open space is now gone.
There are several concerns. Will the Minister take this opportunity to elaborate on the differences he mentioned that require further research and investigation?
Can the Minister confirm that health board finance officers have not had a happy experience of PPPs and that they may not offer value for money?

Dr Sean Farren: I have stressed from the outset that the consultation is based on a report that reflects experience in Northern Ireland and elsewhere on this island, in Britain and further afield to see how we might adapt PPPs, if that is what we agree to do.
There have been mistakes, including delays and inadequate standards, in public sector projects financed by traditional procurement, which is how most developments have been funded. I cannot comment on the situation that the Member mentioned, but if she wishes to write to me I will give her further information on the matter.
We are trying to learn from experiences here and elsewhere to see how we should progress; that is the nature of the consultation exercise. I do not present a definitive policy to the Assembly, and I understand why all of the Members’ issues and concerns have been raised. They should be drawn to our attention, and evidence must be documented where it is available so that the consultation process can benefit from all views, positive and negative, on PPPs. In that way, when the matter is discussed by the Committees and then debated by the Assembly in September, Ministers can be as fully informed as possible about how Members wish us to proceed.

Mr Robert McCartney: The statement sets out ways to borrow money to rectify the enormous deficit in infrastructure. Were the Minister and his Colleagues in both major parties unaware of that enormous deficit when they negotiated the Belfast Agreement? Did they take any steps then to require the Treasury to make good the deficit? The Minister now says that there was a failure to address infrastructure in the past. Were he or his Colleagues unaware of that? That is the nature of the problem, and perhaps the Minister can elaborate on that point.
When the matter was raised in the debate on the spring Supplementary Estimates, the Minister did not deign to respond to the deficit or the methods to be adopted to deal with it. Is the method offered today not simply to borrow on the basis of screwing the people of Northern Ireland for additional money?
The Minister hesitated to use the words "rates" or "water charges". He talked euphemistically about revenue streams that we control and revenue sources. He never once mentioned the ugly fact that "revenue streams that we control" means increasing rates and imposing water charges. Why not? What is so nasty about those words that they cannot be utilised? Perhaps the Minister will explain why, however it is done, we will be involved in expensive borrowing when we are spending £1·2 billion annually on administrative costs that have never been pruned.
If £300 million to £350 million a year were saved on those costs for the next three years, the Minister would be able to commence some of those infrastructure projects with a lump sum of more than £1 billion, without increasing rates and water charges for the people of Northern Ireland, and without burdening them with debt and interest to private financiers in future. Those private —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The Member has put three questions. I ask him to draw to a conclusion.

Mr Robert McCartney: With respect, I might have had a little more time if the answers to earlier questions had not been so prolonged. However, why do the Minister and his Colleagues in the Executive not raise money from savings on administration instead of imposing — or threatening to impose — further taxes?

Dr Sean Farren: The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is launching a review of public administration. In that context, if the Member has proposals on administrative efficiencies and cost savings that he believes should be addressed, he should perhaps make his views known. A general injunction is observed across all areas of public expenditure to ensure best value and to address efficiency and cost savings in every aspect of our public administration. I therefore assure Members that this Minister of Finance and Personnel takes very seriously the whole question of public expenditure.
I shall not address the issue of negotiations during the course of the Good Friday Agreement. I launch today a consultation process on the report of the working group on public-private partnerships. If the Member has suggestions on whether or how those should be used, I trust that he will use the opportunity afforded by the consultation to make us aware of his erudite views.

Mr Danny O'Connor: I welcome some of what the Minister has said. However, I am unashamedly a socialist, and the idea of public-private partnerships rests somewhat uneasily with me. We have heard today from people who sat in the House of Commons and who did nothing when this place was starved of infrastructural investment. We have now been given powers under the reform and reinvestment initiative. Given the crisis in public services that the Executive must address, where does the Minister see those powers fitting in alongside any previous use of PPPs?

Dr Sean Farren: I doubt whether there is a democratic Administration in any part of the world without an available borrowing facility. It is important that Members appreciate that. The report indicates, and perhaps Members already know, that the use of public-private partnerships is widespread across the globe. I invite Members who have not already read the report to examine it and to follow up with detailed evidence, which I am sure our library services can provide, regarding PPPs in Australia, the United States and Canada, as well as those across the EU and closer to home. Public-private partnerships are frequently used to provide infrastructure needs.
As I have already emphasised, we have three main sources from which we can provide the necessary funding for infrastructure projects: a borrowing facility; PPPs — which, if further adapted, can reflect Member’s views more accurately — and the public expenditure allocation in the departmental expenditure limit, which was the traditional means through which we funded projects. The disposal of public assets is also outlined in the report.
With the best available advice and through appropriate and judicious use of those means, we can ensure that we provide the necessary infrastructure and make good the deficit. We must choose the most cost-effective route.

Mr Derek Hussey: The consultation process will address how we finance our future. Does the Minister agree that if we were financing our future, we would not start from here? Reference has been made to the decades of failure to invest in public infrastructure. Who failed to invest in our infrastructure?
The Treasury has shown intransigency by failing to allocate additional funds from Europe to Northern Ireland. Security is being downgraded because we have yet to receive the much promised peace bonus. The reinvestment and reform package is piecemeal compared to the Province’s needs. Does the Minister agree with those observations?
Further, is it not the case that the cost of borrowing would be lowest if the money were borrowed from the Treasury, whereas the cost of borrowing for public-private partnerships would be dictated by private sector partnerships? Given current financing and resource budgeting methods, the cost of depreciation will impact on the departmental expenditure limits. Therefore, we might pay for assets two or three times over. We will pay for the cost of depreciation and for the money that we borrowed. Will the Minister assure the House that the depreciation from the departmental expenditure limits is used for the future replacement of assets?

Dr Sean Farren: The underinvestment that we experience in our public services and infrastructure is also experienced across the water. I assumed that Members on the other side of the House would appreciate that fact even more than I. The main cause of underinvestment was the cutbacks that successive Conservative Governments imposed in the 1980s and the early 1990s. Therefore our deficit is not unique. Readers of the London newspapers will know of the significant deficit in transport, hospitals and schools across the water.
It is not a deficit that is unique to us. Of course, our irresponsibility — and I use the word "our" advisedly — meant that we contributed to that deficit, because significant public funds had to be diverted to compensating for the tragic loss of life and destruction of the past 20 years. We made our own particular contribution to that deficit. However, the deficit is there, and we must find a way out of it.
Assembly Member Hussey commented on the impact of the different forms of financing that are available to us. It is the private partner who must finance a public-private partnership, but that is his or her responsibility. The calculation of the financial cost is part of what must be assessed to determine whether the total cost will give us value for money. The unitary cost must be paid for each PPP project, but that does not include depreciation. However, if we borrow, depreciation costs are then counted against our departmental expenditure limit. We do not have to pay three or four times for the same thing, and it is important that Members appreciate that.
The Executive must ask how to achieve value for money from a particular project in the most cost-effective and efficient way, and find the answer. They should also ask what funding they should use to make particular projects possible. The Executive will answer those questions, and the answers will then be brought to the House so that Members know precisely what we are determining with respect to the expenditure burden. Nothing is free, as I said in my statement; all investment carries a cost. We carry the cost, and when I say "we" I mean everybody in Northern Ireland who contributes to the public purse, and, indeed, those outside Northern Ireland from whose contributions we draw.
We are guardians of that purse, and we must be prudent in making allocations from it. I trust that the decisions will be made prudently and that the projects will be those with which Members want us to proceed. The people of Northern Ireland want us to proceed with them sooner rather than later to make good that deficit. I must tell Mr Hussey that we are, in fact, where we are. We have no choice as to the position from which we start. [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill: Second Stage

Ms Brid Rodgers: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill (NIA Bill 8/01) be agreed.

Ms Jane Morrice: Does the Minister wish to make any further comment?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Bill seeks to prohibit the keeping of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for their fur. This is not a welfare issue but one of public morality. Our belief is that fur farming should be banned because it is inconsistent with proper value and respect for animal life.
Although killing animals is not inherently right or wrong, animals should not be destroyed in the absence of sufficient public benefit justification. Rearing animals solely or primarily for slaughter for their fur fails this test, hence fur farming cannot be justified. Fur farming is distinct from food production. Although keeping an animal for food production is of sufficient public benefit to justify breeding for slaughter, that premise does not work for the practice of slaughtering animals for their fur.
I am not aware of any fur farming businesses in Northern Ireland; however, that does not mean that the Bill is not needed. Similar Bills to ban fur farming in England, Wales and Scotland will be enacted on 1 January 2003. In espousing the principles inherent in banning fur farming, it is important that the Bill becomes law here to prevent such businesses in the rest of the UK from seeking to relocate here.
The Bill is relatively short, and it may be helpful if I detail briefly the five main clauses. Clause 1 deals with offences and creates a primary offence of keeping animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur, or for breeding progeny for such slaughter. It also creates a secondary offence of knowingly causing or permitting another person to keep animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur, or for breeding progeny for such slaughter. Both the primary and secondary offences are summary offences, for which the maximum penalty is £20,000.
Clause 2 deals with forfeiture orders and empowers the court to make an order for the forfeiture and destruction or other disposal of the animals in the event that a person is convicted of either the primary or secondary offence. Any person claiming to have an interest in the animals may appeal against the forfeiture order to the court. Clause 3 deals with the effect of a forfeiture order and provides a right of appeal for any person claiming to have an interest in animals that are the subject of a forfeiture order.
Clause 4 confers to officials authorised by the Department the power of entry and inspection to enable the gathering of evidence, and to anyone authorised by the courts the power to enter premises to carry out a forfeiture order. An offence of intentionally obstructing or delaying anyone in the exercise of his or her power is also created. Clause 5 provides for the Department to create a scheme to pay compensation to people who claim income losses as a result of the discontinuation of their business. Since there are not thought to be any fur farming businesses in Northern Ireland, that provision is unlikely to be invoked. However, it is included as a precaution to satisfy human rights requirements.
I hope that Members agree that the measures I have outlined should be implemented for the reasons given. I ask the Assembly to approve the Second Stage of the Bill and to support the motion that will allow it to progress to Committee Stage.

Mr George Savage: At its meeting on 10 May 2003, the Committee agreed that I should speak on its behalf in this debate. On 15 June, the Committee considered the results of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s consultation on the Bill. Members noted that there were few responses and that no dissenting views had been expressed on the principles of the Bill. More recently, the Committee had an opportunity to examine the draft Bill and its explanatory and financial memorandum. I thank the Minister for providing the Committee with that information so early.
The Committee will fulfil its obligation to carry out a detailed scrutiny of the Bill at the Committee Stage before making its final report. Members are concerned to establish the purpose of the Bill and its implications for other sectors of the agriculture industry. There are ethical and practical matters to be considered. For example, we must decide whether the Department is taking a moral stand against breeding animals for the value of their fur, or whether prohibition will be on welfare grounds. If the former is the case, how does this stand against breeding animals for slaughter for their meat, or is this legislation intended solely to close a loophole in the law in the UK? What are the implications for the UK when our neighbours in the EU have not taken a similar step towards animal welfare? Those issues were raised during our early discussions in the Committee, and they will be explored further at Committee Stage.
I also expect the Committee to look closely at the proposed compensation scheme for fur farmers who incur losses as a result of the ban, given that we are told that there are no known businesses of this nature currently operating in Northern Ireland.
In summary, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development looks forward to the opportunity not only to consider the purpose and possible impact of the Bill, but also to carry out a clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill. I will conclude by saying that I was in a restaurant recently where one of the main courses on the menu was squirrel. These are examples of matters that we have to take on board.

Mr Danny O'Connor: I support the Bill. This is basically a morality issue; it is about cruelty to animals. Those animals’ sole purpose in life should not be to provide somebody with a fur coat. I fully support the Bill purely on the morality issue, and given that cruelty to animals is not acceptable, and that this is an issue of morals, I hope that some legislation banning fox hunting will be brought forward in the future.

Mr Jim Wells: I totally and enthusiastically support the Bill. My wife will never wear a fur coat, and, quite frankly, no one with a fur coat will ever be welcome in my home.
Fur farming is a cruel, nasty and totally unnecessary process. Animals used to roaming in territories of up to 50 sq miles are taken, and bred, to be kept in cages measuring as little as 50sq inches. They are then subjected to the most brutal death to simply appease the vanity of some narrow-minded women and, to some extent, men, who believe that wearing the fur of a dead animal on their back is fashionable. I find that morally obnoxious. If any Member of the House were to spend five minutes at one of the few remaining fur farms in the UK, they would be utterly appalled at what they would see. They would see animals chasing round and round small cages, being driven insane by the confines of their capture, and then being subjected to excruciatingly painful deaths so as to avoid any damage to the fur coat.
I am glad that, as a result of the work of organisations such as Lynx, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), public opinion has turned on this vile trade — to the extent that there will not be a need to pay compensation to any fur farmers in Northern Ireland because this practice has died out here. Sad to say, the last fur farm that I am aware of in Northern Ireland was in my constituency of South Down. It was in Ballynahinch, but I am glad to say that as a result of public opinion it has gone out of business.
This legislation is extremely enlightened. My understanding is that it is based upon equivalent law in the rest of the United Kingdom, where the fur farming trade has seen the writing on the wall. Agreement was reached between the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) and the representative body of the fur farming trade that fur farming will be phased out by 2003. A compensation package agreeable to all has been put in place. That is good news. The fur farming trade will go out of this business without being out of pocket, and we will no longer have this so-called process of producing fur in the UK.
I have a couple of questions to ask the Minister. I would not at all want to stand in the way of this legislation. What is the situation in the Republic of Ireland? Could a situation arise in which this practice still continued in the Irish Republic and individuals circumvented the legislation by moving the process there?
Can I presume that any business that has already received compensation in other parts of the United Kingdom cannot move its operations temporarily to Northern Ireland to pick up a second tranche of compensation because the legislation here is several years behind that in the rest of the UK?
Finally — and the Minister may not be interested in answering this — I welcome the Bill as the first piece of genuine animal welfare legislation that she has advanced. Significant steps have been taken to alleviate suffering in the farming process. We have seen the abolition of stall-and-tether systems and the crate-rearing system for veal calves. The Minister must be aware that there are still one or two issues that cause enormous public concern in farming, even in Northern Ireland. The public is becoming more and more concerned about the way in which our animals are reared for food as well as for their pelts. She would certainly go down in history as having achieved major gains if she were to tackle these problems of animal welfare. All who have given any thought to this and who know what goes on in some farms will give her our total support.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. This is an emotive Bill for some people. It is important that we scrutinise it, as we would any other, regardless of whether it seems that we should just pass it and implement it. There may be important points to be addressed that are not immediately obvious. That can be done at the Committee Stage and later.
The consultation has not drawn much interest, and there are particular reasons for that. We are led to believe that there is no fur farming in the Six Counties. We must also take into account the impact of there not being similar legislation in Europe. What is the situation in the South? What is the possibility of fur farms simply moving from one place to the other? The point about secondary compensation may well have to be considered.
The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee and the Minister have covered all the other points. In the consideration of moral issues, we have not properly looked at, or perhaps had access to, the principles of the Bill. We can do that later.
Some people might be afraid to bring in a total ban on anything, as that raises the question of where we could end up later. Could it be extended to other areas, such as animals for food and so on? The question always arises: what point will we reach in the future?
The Member opposite has covered the welfare of the animals involved in this trade. The public are totally against rearing animals for fur and slaughter only. There is no excuse or reason for it, and it has now become a big issue. Strong lobbies are fighting on these fronts and must be taken into account. They are fighting for an important cause. From that point of view, there are few who would oppose the Bill.
The point made about animals that are used to the wild being kept on fur farms is correct. Wild mink are not native to this country, and those that escape do enormous damage to wildlife in the countryside.
Lobbyists make many points about farming and other matters that are not accurate. There is a debate on penned calves, but as a farmer I know that calves can live quite happily in small pens, whereas other farm animals cannot. That is not taken into account by the lobbyists, and they use those points against farmers and others in the countryside.
The Minister should look at what happens elsewhere in the world, as we are in a global picture. What happens in the fur trade elsewhere, and have we any impact on that? Europe has not introduced legislation yet, but it may. What is the welfare standard in food production on farms outside Europe? Chicken processors here bring birds from countries outside Europe.

Mr Danny O'Connor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What has that to do with fur farming? Mr McHugh is making a speech about food coming in from outside Europe. We are debating the Second Stage of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill.

Ms Jane Morrice: Thank you for that point of order. There was a question on European Directives. Will MrMcHugh continue and keep to the point?

Mr Gerry McHugh: There are times when people may stray off the mark. However, points about fur farming bring in the arguments made by other lobbyists on agriculture issues. Fur farming could be called farming — the arguments are the same. If a ban on fur farming is introduced, that could have an impact on all other methods of farming in the future, including angling.
I will not debate the issue any further. I support the basic thrust of the Bill. The Committee and everyone else must get involved in the detail.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I want to assure Mr McHugh that women who wear fishnet tights have very little to do with the products of angling.
I support the Bill. I will make one comment. If this Bill is following legislation being introduced in January in Scotland, England and Wales, where there may be fur farms and where fur farmers may require compensation, and if the consultation process here shows that there are no fur farmers, why is there a clause in the Bill to pay compensation? Nobody needs it.
We have a devolved Assembly and devolved legislation that reflects the circumstances of Northern Ireland. We are giving the Committee extra work that is not required. There is a commitment under the human rights legislation that we do not do anything that would have a detrimental effect on people, but it does not make sense to have clauses to do with compensation that is not required.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I always have a wry smile on my face when I follow a Sinn Féin Member making a speech on welfare. I wish that Sinn Féin and the IRA had shown as much concern for the welfare of human beings over the last 30 years as they are showing for the welfare of animals.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: That is a side issue. Unfortunately, it is not reflected in the Bill. The Bill raises some issues that the Minister may be able to explain to the House. The Bill has a clear objective, which is to prevent fur farming, and once it becomes an Act, those engaged in fur farming will be guilty of an offence and subject to a penalty.
However, what is the principle behind the Bill? That is important, because, as Mr O’Connor said, the issue is purely one of morality. Is that the Bill’s policy objective? Is there a moral principle against the raising of animals solely for their fur or skins? If the principle is one of animal welfare, the Bill goes beyond that. A prohibition on the raising of animals is not normally the way to deal with matters of animal welfare. One of my Colleagues mentioned stalls and tethers for pigs. Stalls and tethers were banned, but the raising and slaughtering of pigs was not banned. The Department dealt consistently and appropriately with animal welfare as a side issue, but the fundamental issue of raising an animal for its products has not been addressed.

Mr Jim Wells: Will the Member give way?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I shall not give way at this time. Is the Bill’s objective a moral one? If so, I want the Minister to spell out that moral objective. It is important that the Government stand up and say that they have a moral objection to the raising of animals solely for their fur. If that is the Bill’s intention, that is fair enough. That is open and honest and means that the Government are going to be consistent.
However, will they be consistent? To be consistent, to oppose the raising of an animal solely for its fur on moral grounds must mean that it is morally wrong to wear fur. If it is morally wrong to wear fur, we must wait for this Government to introduce another Bill that will ban the sale of fur. There must be consistency. If that is a policy of the Executive, there must be consistency across the Departments.
I do not oppose the Bill, but I do have a moral objection which is consistent. It is important that the Government are consistent, say that they are morally opposed and take all the steps that they should be taking. As it stands, the Bill does nothing but pander to a certain political lobby. That is wrong and unfair.
The Bill’s objective is not consistent with European legislation. That amazes me, because the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is always trying, and is often forced, to be consistent with European legislation and practice. Let us look at the facts. Mr Wells asked whether a loophole in the legislation would enable someone to move to the Republic of Ireland to raise animals for their fur. The answer is "Yes". One can move to any country in the European Union, raise animals solely for their fur and sell them in the European Union.
My Colleagues may be interested to know that there are more than 6,000 fur farms in EU member states. There are 290 fur farms in EU-applicant countries — those countries that will soon be welcomed into the EU. The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment may be interested to know that there are 29,125 retail businesses across the EU engaged in selling fur. If there is to be a prohibition, let us deal with those issues. Some 164,000 people are employed full-time in the fur industry in Europe — it is a European industry.
The Government should recognise that in Europe the business is worth a great deal of money. It was worth over £4·7 million in the UK in 1999-2000, so it has to be worth considerably more in the rest of the European Union. The Government should be consistent, and they should spell out whether there is an alternative. The alternative may be to address the issue of animal welfare. That issue was addressed satisfactorily with regard to stalls and tethers for pigs, and it was addressed adequately with regard to raising hens for their eggs. If those matters were adequately addressed, can the Department satisfy its animal welfare objectives without banning a product? If it bans a product, it must ban not only the raising of it but the sale of it, or the Government will be being inconsistent.
I would like the Government to be consistent rather than say that they are simply against raising the animals. If you oppose raising animals for their fur, you have to oppose the sale of the fur. It would be highly inconsistent for a Member to say that he or she opposes the raising of an animal for its fur and then parade into the House in a fur coat. We should address that. My Colleague is itching to get to his feet, and I would like him to make his point before I address three of the clauses in the Bill.

Mr Jim Wells: I largely agree with what the Member has said, but I would like him to address two points. First, we are not dealing with a domesticated animal that has been bred for centuries to be kept in captivity — we are dealing with wild animals. We are talking about wild American mink that are incapable of adjusting to a domestic lifestyle. They are kept in extremely cramped conditions, which is cruel.
Secondly, these animals cause enormous damage to fisheries and wildlife when they escape from captivity. Departments in the rest of the United Kingdom have spent a fortune trying to eradicate mink from river systems. They are causing great ecological damage in Fermanagh, for example, and that is an unfortunate side effect of breeding mink for fur production. Species such as coypu and muskrat have also escaped and caused great damage to river systems in other parts of the United Kingdom. Does the Member accept that there is a good practical reason for discouraging fur farming in that we cannot afford to have any more escapes into the environment?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I appreciate the point, and my Colleague is being absolutely consistent. His opposition to fur farming is on moral grounds, and he is absolutely clear about that. Danny O’Connor said that his support for the Bill is on a moral objection. He said that this is purely a moral issue, and he is being absolutely consistent. However, I am worried that the Department is not doing likewise.
Mr Wells raised the point about the side effects, and I agree. If there is a pest, there must be pest control. However, the method of eradicating the pest may be crueller than raising it and then killing it under controlled circumstances on a fur farm. I agree that the consequences that he has spelt out are pretty devastating, having a large impact on the environment, and that they would, therefore, cause more moral objections for him and the people whom he speaks for on this.
Clause 1 on offences relating to fur farming states that a person will be guilty of an offence if he keeps animals solely or primarily for the distribution of their fur. If he is caught doing that, the fine will be £20,000 — the cost of two fur coats. Perhaps the Department should consider whether that is an adequate penalty. I do not know the level of the fine in the rest of the United Kingdom, but that issue should be addressed. Price was not one of the reasons for Mr Wells not buying his wife a fur coat, but he does know that they are very expensive. However, I do not think that the cost of two fur coats is an adequate fine.
With regard to clause 5, is compensation for existing businesses time-barred? As the Bill goes through Committee Stage, can someone set up a fur farm and receive compensation when it is closed down? Ms McWilliams raised the point that if clause 5 does not have to be included, why is it there? The clause opens the door for the legislation to be abused, and the Department should address that effectively. If we are sure that there are no businesses in Northern Ireland that should be compensated, why does the draft legislation include a compensatory clause? I hope that the Minister will reflect on those points.
The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, of which I am a Member, is looking at the Bill. The Committee has invited all the interested parties to make their points, and I look forward to hearing the points that the British Fur Trade Association will make in defence of its industry. I also look forward to hearing the opposition’s case. It is important that we get a balance of opinion before we support something solely for emotional reasons and when there is no back-up from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Indeed, the Government, if they are to be consistent, should support all Departments.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am grateful for Members’ comments. It is not possible to cover all the issues in the time available. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that I shall not be confined to five minutes when some Members spoke for around 15 minutes.

Ms Jane Morrice: I remind Members that there is a Business Committee meeting at 12.30 pm. However, we shall allow the Minister to speak until then.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask only for the same treatment as everyone else in the House.
It will not be possible to cover everything in detail; however, I shall try to answer the more substantive issues. In reply to Mr Savage, the low level of response was not our fault — we consulted more than 80 bodies. On Friday, officials will discuss with the Committee many of the other points that were made; I covered some already in my opening statement. Mr Wells mentioned the situation in the Republic of Ireland. There are some fur farming businesses there and, as far as we are aware, the authorities in the Republic have no plans to prohibit fur farming. I share the Member’s concerns for general animal welfare and shall continue to take steps to deal with particular aspects of that insofar as that is possible.
Mr McHugh raised the issue of Northern Ireland’s fur farms moving to the Republic. As I have said, I am not aware that there are any here, and we cannot influence what happens in the Republic — our concern is to stop fur farming in Northern Ireland. He also expressed unease about total bans. I agree, and I try to use powers to ban activities judiciously and only when necessary.
In response to Ms McWilliams, the clause on compensation is necessary. It is required to ensure that the Bill complies with the European Convention on Human Rights. However, Ms McWilliams will note that there is no detail about compensation. It is only an enabling clause in case compensation is necessary.
Had Mr Paisley Jnr been present during my initial statement, he would know that I made it clear that this is not a welfare issue, but one of public morality. Our belief is that fur farming should be banned because it is not consistent with proper value and respect for animal life. I advise the Member to read the rest of my statement. He will then understand that I was absolutely consistent, open and frank about why the Bill was introduced. I was amused to hear him talk about banning fur coats and so on. Any action that is taken must be balanced. One person’s morality is not necessarily another’s. For example, some people would ban swimming and the use of swings on Sunday. I do not think that morals should be imposed.
I believe that the Bill I have introduced has public support. It is clear from cross-party remarks today that fur farming should be banned because it is immoral and unacceptable. As for concerns about consistency with other countries, I remind the House that some countries have a practice of cutting off people’s hands because they steal things. I hope that the Member does not suggest that we should adopt that practice.
A ban on fur sales from abroad was also suggested. Northern Ireland must honour its obligations under international agreements that were designed to ensure that countries have the right to trade freely. An import ban on fur products would have an adverse impact on our trading partners, many of whom are dependent on exports for jobs and do not necessarily share our cultural and ethical outlook.
The Government disapprove of fur imports, but they cannot control production of fur abroad. However, they are controlling production within their own sphere of influence. That is why Northern Ireland should set an example and ban fur production. Austria has led the way, and Scotland, Wales and England have followed suit.
I have been asked why I have introduced the measure, when other member states have not. Our treatment of fur farming is a matter for those countries to consider. Several member states share Northern Ireland’s views on fur farming and the moral issue of how animals are treated and whether they are killed unnecessarily. The Government are taking action to apply consistency across the United Kingdom, and I imagine Mr Paisley would approve.
The fine of £20,000 is also imposed in the rest of the United Kingdom. As to its severity — I suspect that the price paid for fur coats is not the same as the price paid to the farmer, so £20,000 is a substantial fine for a farmer.
Mr Paisley and others raised the issue of farms moving South. The Department will not license any fur farming in Northern Ireland while the Bill is going through.
I will write to Members about any points that I have not covered. I thank them for their contributions.

Ms Jane Morrice: I thank the Minister for drawing her remarks to a close exactly on time.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill (NIA Bill 8/01) be agreed.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development.
The sitting was suspended at 12.30 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Limited Liability Partnerships Bill: Second Stage

Sir Reg Empey: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Limited Liability Partnerships Bill (NIA 9/01) be agreed.
The Bill delivers on the Department’s commitment to keep the legal framework for business in Northern Ireland at the forefront of international best practice by giving firms an additional choice of business vehicle — the limited liability partnership (LLP) — within which to conduct their corporate affairs. The introduction of the LLP is a significant development in partnership law because it offers firms the ability to incorporate with limited liability while organising themselves as partnerships rather than companies.
The Bill intends that an LLP will be subject to broadly the same requirements as a limited company. As a separate legal entity, an LLP will be able to enter into contracts, hold property and continue to exist despite any change in membership. Partnership law will not, in general, apply to an LLP, with the exception of taxation. The decision to become an LLP will be taken voluntarily by partnerships and will be based on commercial considerations.
My Department has estimated that, for a medium-sized firm with an annual turnover of £13 million, the LLP start-up costs will be £8,670, with annual recurring costs of £8,520. Although the costs are in line with those in Great Britain, it is worth noting that by making the LLP available in Northern Ireland, local firms that might have otherwise located offshore to enjoy the benefits of LLP status will avoid paying the additional costs involved.
The Bill is a significant modernising measure. There has been no fundamental change to partnership law in Northern Ireland since the Limited Partnerships Act 1907. Members will undoubtedly agree that modernisation to reflect the realities and pressures of today’s business climate is long overdue.
The growing number of professional partnerships exposed to litigation has highlighted a weakness in the traditional partnership, where an individual partner’s personal assets are potentially at risk because of the actions of an unknown partner. The Bill will rectify that weakness by combining limited liability with the internal flexibility of a partnership. It seeks to protect the personal assets of members of an LLP where the individual is not at fault. However, the assets of the LLP itself will be at risk if improper behaviour occurs, as will the assets of the negligent partner.
In recent years, the number of partnerships in Northern Ireland has increased to approximately 13,400. They encompass the full spectrum of business and industry sectors, as well as professionals such as solicitors and accountants. The growth and success of those partnerships is potentially hampered by unlimited liability, which puts the personal assets of each partner at risk as a result of liability incurred by one of them. The fear of losing personal assets as a result of a partner’s actions is a particular disincentive to professional partnerships. In addition, as firms expand their services and multidisciplinary partnerships become more widely used, the traditional argument that partners should take responsibility for one another’s work has less force.
The Bill has four main benefits for partnerships. First, the limited liability vehicle redistributes the risk to protect partners in a firm who have no direct responsibility for a claim against their firm caused by the action of a partner, thus reducing the risk of a non-negligent partner’s assets.
Secondly, at present local firms do not have the option of registering as an LLP in Northern Ireland. It is, however, open to such firms to register in Great Britain or under similar regimes in offshore locations such as Jersey or the United States to gain limited liability status. Such moves are potentially detrimental to the Northern Ireland economy. The Bill, therefore, ensures that Northern Ireland firms have the option of enjoying the benefits of limited liability partnership status by registering in Northern Ireland rather than in other jurisdictions. That is of particular value to professional partnerships, which might otherwise be tempted to incorporate outside Northern Ireland.
Thirdly, as well as modernising partnership association by introducing limited liability, the Bill provides an added benefit. The redistribution of risk as a result of limited liability partnership status is likely to help those firms that have difficulty in recruiting potential partners, who may be deterred by the risk associated with the traditional form of partnership.
Finally, the legislation will maintain Northern Ireland’s reputation as an attractive location for business, allowing local firms to operate competitively with their overseas counterparts. The Bill might encourage new firms, which might otherwise have chosen overseas jurisdictions, to register as limited liability partnerships in Northern Ireland.
Moreover, the Bill delivers on my Department’s commitment to develop a modern, regulatory framework that promotes fairness and protects the public from improper business practice. That is achieved by the provision of legal protection for members of the public who deal with this new form of partnership by requiring public disclosure of information about the limited liability partnership, especially about its finances, and by introducing insolvency safeguards. Public disclosure about the firm will help third parties to reach informed decisions about dealing with individual limited liability partnerships.
Regulations to follow the Bill will include provision for members of a limited liability partnership to be sued for wrongful or fraudulent trading; for disqualification of individuals from membership of a limited liability partnership and from trading as company directors.
My Department consulted widely on the Bill and all respondents endorsed its general principles, welcoming the legislation’s extension of the choice of vehicles for business. Endorsement of the Bill by women entrepreneurs was especially noteworthy. The extended choice of business vehicle and limited liability have the potential to contribute to the economic development of Northern Ireland. Similar policies encouraged women to start up businesses in the United States. Consultees also welcomed the proposed safeguards, disclosures and registration arrangements for limited liability partnerships.
In conclusion, the introduction of the Limited Liability Partnerships Bill makes local firms more attractive to potential new partners, ensures that they retain their international competitiveness and that Northern Ireland remains a fair place in which to do business.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat. The legislation will be beneficial, especially for small businesses. It will afford greater flexibility and will modernise the whole system.
Were representations made by consumer organisations during the consultation process? It may be more difficult to obtain compensation from a limited liability partnership than under the current arrangements. Is that a potential problem for consumers?

Sir Reg Empey: Business organisations and other groups were consulted, under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It was a public consultation, conducted under the usual conditions. The proposals received complete support and there were no negative comments.
The current position on consumer protection is that partnerships are not obliged to publish their accounts. Although we want to limit the liability of individual partners, a consequence of that protection is that partnerships will have to publish their accounts in the same way as limited companies. Therefore, interested persons will be able to access the accounts of a partnership from Companies Registry.
A professional practice of consultants or accountants can comprise 100 partners based in different towns or jurisdictions. Partners are jointly and severally liable for the mistakes of other partners, even though they may have no knowledge of them. The Limited Liability Partnerships Bill will allow partners to avail of the same provisions as limited companies. Therefore, unless a partner is deemed to have acted fraudulently or improperly, as is the case with company directors, there is a limit to the liabilities that he or she must face.
To protect the consumer and anyone who trades with such a partnership, the price of limited liability is that the partnership must publish its accounts annually. The ability to prosecute or disqualify partners or company directors is unchanged. Those provisions offset any risks faced by those who deal with partnerships.
The Member for Upper Bann, Dr O’Hagan, referred to a concern voiced by many people. If a partner is granted limited liability, it may put the consumer at greater risk. Although limited liability partnerships in Northern Ireland will be obliged to publish their accounts, those on mainland Europe may not be. However, I am satisfied that given that partnerships have grown, it is unfair to expect a partner in a large practice to know what another partner is doing in an office in a different county or city. Members must bear in mind that the current law dates back to 1907, when such practice was not envisaged.
The Bill is a modern tool designed to get the best of both worlds by encouraging partnerships and incorporation in Northern Ireland. The consumer, and those who will trade with limited liability partnerships, will enjoy the same protections as those who trade with limited companies. As the new regulations will demonstrate, members of the limited liability partnerships will be liable to the rigour of the law, including disqualification and prosecution.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Limited Liability Partnerships Bill (NIA 9/01) be agreed.

Ad Hoc Committee on the Proposal for a Draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2002

Resolved:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 48(7), this Assembly appoints an Ad Hoc Committee to consider –
The Proposal for a Draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 referred by the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, and to submit a report to the Assembly by 2 July 2002.
Composition: UUP 2 SDLP 2 DUP 2 SF 2
Other Parties 3
Quorum: The quorum shall be five.
Procedure: The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine. — [Ms McWilliams]

Asbestosis

Mr Sean Neeson: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes the plight of asbestosis sufferers in Northern Ireland and calls for proper civil justice for asbestos victims.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this important motion. The motion was tabled because Assembly Members Mr John Kelly, Mr Mick Murphy and I met a group of people who are suffering from asbestosis. The group is known as Justice for Asbestos Victims and was formed by Mr Robbie Brown. I am delighted that Mr Brown and other members of the group are in the Gallery for this important debate.
Mr Brown had to wait 13 years before he was compensated for the disease. His experience reflects the experiences of many people in Northern Ireland in many ways. They suffer a long wait and uncertainty, and compensation often arrives too late because the individual has passed away.
On 5 March 2002, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey, stated in the House that the Department and the Government would accept liability for those who contracted asbestos-related diseases before Harland & Wolff was privatised in 1989.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Does the Member agree that it is rather disappointing that, given the issue’s seriousness, no Minister is in the Chamber to respond? Indeed, several Ministers could have responded, and it would have been useful if the Executive, knowing that the motion was on today’s Order Paper, had agreed at their most recent meeting which Minister had chief responsibility for responding in the debate.

Mr Sean Neeson: I thank Ms McWilliams for her intervention. I regret not only the absence of a Minister, but I am not too impressed by the number of Members present in the Chamber. The issue is important, and it is one that myself and others are determined to carry through.
Last week, the House of Lords made a landmark decision; the Fairchild judgement. The judgement was made because of the uncertainty surrounding where people were employed when they contracted asbestos-related diseases.
I welcome the Minister for Employment and Learning into the Chamber, and I assure her that she has not missed too much.
The uncertainty that was created is important. The interesting fact about the judgement was that it took the Law Lords barely a week to reach their decision. One of the reasons for that was that the case involved three people. Mr Edwin Matthews was too weak to travel to the hearing, and Mrs Judith Fairchild and Mrs Doreen Fox attended for their husbands, Arthur and Thomas, who had already died. That shows that the problem has been around for some time, and that many people died before the decision was taken.
One of the main issues that the Assembly must take on board is that the cancerous disease mesothelioma can be caused by a single asbestos fibre. That demonstrates how severe the disease can be — it is a fatal disease. It can remain dormant in people’s bodies for many years, and that has led to many injustices that people in the UK have suffered.
Mrs Judith Fairchild was awarded compensation in the region of £191,000 in last week’s judgement. However, many people in Northern Ireland who have been awarded compensation have not received anything like that amount. I hope that today’s debate will result in a review of those cases. People who have suffered must receive sufficient compensation.
I am pleased that the Scottish Parliament has begun to address the issue in a major way. At a meeting of the Public Petitions Committee on 27 February 2001, Mr Frank Maguire, a solicitor for many sufferers in the Clydeside area, said:
"Asbestos-related illnesses are probably the hardest cases. There are hard cases where people are dying for other reasons, but I am dealing with someone whose life is draining away from them. I cannot get the case through the courts in time to get them the payment in advance to improve their quality of life and to help them when they are ill. There is no point in getting them damages just before they die. If they die, the widow and the family have to carry on the case — that adds to the grieving process."
That shows the enormity of the problem and the suffering. It is not only the individual who suffers, but the whole family.
The problem has regional implications. Last year, in Great Britain alone, 5,000 people died from asbestos-related diseases. That figure is predicted to double over the next decade. Northern Ireland has a high number of cases of asbestos-related diseases. It is estimated that at least 90 people die each year from those diseases in Northern Ireland. The total is probably much higher than that. If the figure in Great Britain is going to double, there will undoubtedly be a similar trend in Northern Ireland.
Asbestosis does not affect only those who worked in the shipyard. Because of its fire-resistant qualities, it was used in the building industry in pipes, guttering, lagging, tiles and cement. It was also used in car brake linings.
Of particular significance to Northern Ireland is that many members of the emergency and security services, when they attended bomb scenes, had to enter old buildings that contained large amounts of asbestos without protection. Approximately two years ago I met a group of representatives of the Fire Service, the Ambulance Service and the police who were worried that they had come into contact with asbestos when attending bombed buildings, but that that was not recognised by their employers. A special case must be made on that basis.
We need to address the problem of asbestos fibres being brought home on the clothes of people who have had contact with the substance. Those cases are similar to the contracting of cancer because of passive smoking. I want to highlight two cases. First, the headline of an article in ‘The Belfast Telegraph’ on 20 October 1999 read "Death under the stairs". The article stated:
"Playing under the stairs is a past-time that many people remember fondly as a game of their childhood.
But for Margery Conway, playing under the stairs as a child in her family home in north Belfast was to end many years later in tragedy. Her innocent game led her to developing a rare form of cancer which, after a brave battle, took her life in January 1997, five weeks short of her 50th birthday.
Her father James McAleer, who had used asbestos while working for Turner and Newells at Harland and Wolff shipyard during the 1940s and 1950s, used to hang his work clothes — covered in asbestos dust — under the stairs when he came home at night.
And doctors believe it was this contact with her father’s work clothes that led her to developing the terminal disease, which did not surface until April 1995.
It is the nature of the disease to remain dormant for up to 50 years."
As I tried to explain earlier, the symptoms of asbestosis can remain dormant for a long time.
The second quote is from a debate in the Scottish Parliament on 16 November 2000, when Mr Duncan McNeil stated:
"Asbestos fibres that were brought into the home on overalls and in hair also damaged wives and children. I am aware of a case of a woman who was a bus conductress, who took shipyard workers to and from work. She had never been in a shipyard in her life, but she contracted cancer from asbestos on her passengers’ overalls."
The two cases underline how the disease can be contracted. By pure coincidence, last night when I phoned a constituent about a different matter, I learned that her husband had suffered from asbestosis since his early 30s. Compensation is not the only issue. Prof McWilliams was correct to say that the matter is of cross-departmental importance.
One of the big problems that my constituent faced was that her husband was in receipt of incapacity benefit, but it was suddenly disallowed. That was even though it was recognised that he suffered from asbestosis and was practically crippled. The Department must, therefore, ensure that all sufferers receive the right benefits. I recognise that the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland is carrying out a consultation process. However, the purpose of the motion is to demand — and I mean "demand" — the right for civil justice for all sufferers of asbestos-related diseases.
I thank the Assembly’s research and library service for its help and the information sent to me. I also thank my researcher.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I ask Members to try to limit their speeches to about eight minutes.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I support the motion, and I thank Mr Neeson, Mr J Kelly and Mr M Murphy for giving us the opportunity to consider this important subject.
I want to make several remarks from the perspective of the Department for Employment and Learning and, in particular, from the Committee that I chair. I want to make about half a dozen points. First, I want to speak about the seriousness of this disease, which was well described by Mr Neeson. Secondly, I will refer to the Harland & Wolff employment liability issue, which was debated in the House about two months ago. Thirdly, I want to speak about the pneumoconiosis Statutory Rule. Fourthly, I will mention the position relating to the wider application of that Statutory Rule to asbestos-related diseases, which was covered in an answer by the Minister for Employment and Learning in April this year. Fifthly, I will speak about the House of Lord’s ruling of last week, and, finally, I will address the impact on the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.
There can be little doubt about the seriousness of the disease. Last year, around 5,000 people died from asbestos-related diseases across the UK. That figure is expected to rise to approximately 10,000 by the end of this decade. As we all probably know, the victims are mainly people from the building industries or shipyard workers. However, teachers, children and nurses have also been affected, partly because of the previous use of asbestos in the construction of, for example, schools and hospitals. As Mr Neeson has rightly pointed out, families can be affected by secondary exposure, ingesting substances from the fibres carried in on workers’ clothes as they return home. There is about one death every four days in Northern Ireland from these related diseases.
My second point relates to the shipyard. It is thought that up to 3,000 workers employed by Harland & Wolff prior to its privatisation in 1989 were infected as a result of coming into contact with asbestos. The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey, made that point on 5 March this year. Up to £190 million of public money could be paid out over the next 50 years to employees seeking compensation — so it is a long-term commitment and liability. The Department’s liability in this case arises because of the declared insolvency of Harland & Wolff’s insurance company in January 2002.
In April 2002, the House affirmed Statutory Rule 133/2002, relating not to asbestosis but to a related lung disease, pneumoconiosis. For this disease public liability on the part of the Department for Employment and Learning has been accepted in cases where individuals are unable to take court action to recover damages from employers — usually where businesses have ceased to trade. In a press release on 22 April 2002, the Minister for Employment and Learning said:
"I am extending the compensation scheme, administered by my Department under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Order 1979, to cover the making of payments to qualifying sufferers from mesothelioma who are affected by the judgement in the Fairchild case."
That relates to the House of Lords ruling on 16 May 2002 that overturned a previous Court of Appeal judgement — the so-called "Fairchild judgement". In the Fairchild judgement, the Court of Appeal decided on 11 December 2001 that where a worker had been exposed to asbestos dust during his or her employment with more than one company, he or she could not succeed in claiming for damages unless it was shown which company or employer was primarily responsible.
By overturning that judgement, the House of Lords has, appropriately, opened up a wider possibility for individuals to claim against companies. It is reckoned that insurance companies could face bills of up to £6 billion or £8 billion across the UK.
That has implications for the Departments here. The implied liability on the part of the Department for Employment and Learning, and perhaps the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, will be less because it is now possible for individuals to claim against companies.
The Department for Employment and Learning must do all in its power to ensure that people are compensated quickly for this terrible disease. I urge the Minister for Employment and Learning and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to do all that they can to ensure that compensation claims are settled speedily and so avoid prolonged additional suffering. I am confident that that will be their intention.
As Chairman of the Committee for Employment and Learning, I support the motion.

Mr Alex Attwood: I welcome the motion, and I will address it from two perspectives. The second perspective will be the enduring legacy of the use of asbestos. However, I also want to look at the potential threat from asbestos that is present in properties in this city and elsewhere.
Last weekend, the Housing Executive issued letters to a large number of people in west Belfast about the discovery of what it referred to as "low-grade white asbestos" in the roof spaces of various properties in Bingnian Drive and Bearnagh Drive. The Housing Executive has taken steps to assure people there that the risk is low and that it will be cleared up.
Several observations must be made about the Housing Executive’s response to that concern and the potential threat. The first is that the Housing Executive has decided that it will only inspect, clean and reinstate the roof spaces of the houses that it owns. That is unsatisfactory. Many people in those areas bought their properties from the Housing Executive. At the time of purchase, no reasonable inspection by them or by a surveyor would have revealed the presence of asbestos in the roof space.
Given that no reasonable inspection would have led to that discovery, it is incumbent upon the Housing Executive to rectify the defect and clear out the roof spaces of all properties potentially affected by what it refers to as "low-grade white asbestos".
Secondly, the Housing Executive discovered the problem on the basis of an inspection of only 25 houses, in which it determined that there were only small traces of asbestos. I put it to the House that an inspection of 25 houses can be considered to be only preliminary in nature. To make a judgement about the real extent of the problem, the Housing Executive should inspect without delay the roof spaces of all the houses potentially affected in and around that area.
Thirdly, the houses in Bingnian Drive and Bearnagh Drive are terraced. There is a danger that even if the Housing Executive cleared out the roof spaces of its own properties, there would be cross-contamination with neighbouring properties in private hands that have not been cleared out and cleaned. To reassure people that there will be no contamination in the future, the Housing Executive should, as a matter of urgency, clear out those roof spaces in both public and private hands.
With regard to what is a potential and real threat, the Housing Executive claims that it has independent specialist opinion that the particular type of asbestos found on the properties presents, in its words, "a very low risk". The Housing Executive should make public the basis on which it makes that assertion. If that evidence is not current or well founded, or is not based on up-to-date empirical analysis or ongoing research, it may not reassure people living in those properties that, as the Housing Executive says, there is a very low risk. It should publish the empirical basis on which it has come to that conclusion.
If it is proven that that evidence is not current or well grounded, the Housing Executive should conduct further independent research to determine whether the asbestos that still lingers in roof spaces in and around Bingnian Drive and Bearnagh Drive is or is not low risk. In all those circumstances, it should be able to indicate to concerned people in that area what the connection is between so-called low-grade white asbestos and ill health. What is the timescale between exposure and possible identification of ill health? What is the potential of death arising from exposure, at whatever level, to low-grade white asbestos?
If we are to learn from the difficulties over many decades arising from exposure to asbestos in Harland & Wolff and elsewhere, it should be that it is the duty of public bodies, including the Housing Executive, to take all possible remedial steps quickly, to apply them equally and to give every reassurance based on medical and other evidence of the level of risk. In all those regards, the Housing Executive should be seen to act promptly.
I shall conclude by moving to the wider issue. Other Members will no doubt detail the history of asbestos use, risk and threat in workplaces in Northern Ireland. However, there are several particulars that should now be considered in order to bring quick closure to those who continue to suffer the effects of exposure to asbestos and to those who are still seeking compensation as a result of injury due to exposure to or on behalf of people who have died.
Those initiatives should include various features. First, given that the Assembly is now paying the compensation, the Assembly, through the Executive, should lay down time limits and time frames within which every claim must be concluded. Otherwise, there will be further delay and doubt, and that will be no reassurance to the victims’ families or the survivors. It is public money, so we have an obligation to lay down parameters within which to conclude those cases.
Secondly, given the recent House of Lords decision, an approach should be made to those organisations that still have insurance responsibilities for people in the North to ensure that they offer no further impediments to the settlement of cases. The House of Lords decision graphically reveals that insurance companies have habitually delayed cases in order to anticipate death and avoid responsibility. That should no longer be tolerated.
Thirdly — and I will conclude very quickly, Mr Deputy Speaker — there should be a special budget to ensure that people are not denied legal aid to pursue legal remedies. It should be possible to ensure that cases are brought to court and resolved quickly.

Mr Donovan McClelland: It has been drawn to my attention that I gave Mr Attwood approximately 10 seconds extra. I did my long division sum on the basis that there would be more Members interested in speaking in the debate. As those Members are not present, it may be possible to allocate more time to other Members.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. He was actually given 20 seconds extra, but I do not think that anyone will get into a twist over it.
I start by referring to the Health and Safety Executive’s press release of 5 February 2002. It said:
"All asbestos can cause cancer and the vast bulk of scientific evidence in the UK and abroad regards the risk from white asbestos as proven."
That takes me back to Mr Attwood’s point. The problem of asbestos occurs in many places — it attacks in industry, schools and hospitals, and it is also evident in homes. Having taken on board the quote from the Health and Safety Executive, I am concerned that the Housing Executive has said that traces of white asbestos constitute a low risk. The same press release also said that:
"Building maintenance workers might be exposed to an estimated average of 0·1 fibres per millilitre of white asbestos over a working life which would create a risk equivalent to one death in 5,000 workers."
However, the Housing Executive has the cheek to tell its tenants that the asbestos is low risk.
I want to concentrate briefly on Housing Executive properties in the constituency of West Belfast. Over 13 years ago, the Housing Executive was concerned about asbestos in homes there, and it was advised to remove it. The Safety Advice Centre certified it, and the Housing Executive passed the work. Last year, concerns were raised that not all the asbestos had been removed. The Housing Executive carried out surveys and found samples of the very asbestos that should have been removed 13 years ago.
My concern is that out of 480 houses, 330 are now privately owned. People are being informed that there was asbestos in their homes 13 years ago when they were Housing Executive tenants and had been informed by the Housing Executive that the Safety Advice Centre had carried out the work. Now those 330 homeowners are being told that there is still evidence of asbestos in their homes. However, they will not come under the removal scheme. Those former tenants have been advised that it is low risk, but all asbestos can cause cancer. That has been proven.
The Health and Safety Executive has confirmed that building maintenance workers might be exposed to an estimated average of 0.1 fibres of white asbestos in every millilitre of air over a working life, creating a risk equivalent to one death in 5,000 workers. This raises such important questions that it is proper that we call for civil justice for asbestos sufferers.
I am concerned that asbestos is still causing problems today. As Monica McWilliams noted earlier, this problem does not belong to one Department alone. It affects the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety when people are diagnosed with the disease; it falls under the remit of the Department for Social Development in terms of social housing; and it also concerns the Department for Employment and Learning. For that reason the Executive must address the problem, be it in industry, at home, in the shipyard, or in the Health Service, whose legacy of underfunding in turn affects asbestosis sufferers and their families.
The number 13 seems an appropriate number for today. The Housing Executive knew of problems in Andersonstown 13 years ago; 13 years later we are still waiting; and it has been highlighted that some people have been waiting for compensation for 13 years. That is a disgrace, and we must tackle the matter. Not only are those sufferers being ignored, but it is possible that people are still being exposed to asbestos, a known killer. We must ensure that the Housing Executive discharges its responsibilities to its tenants by proving that asbestos is not present in their homes.
Sinn Féin has sought copies of the Housing Executive’s recent survey on the Andersonstown area, but was told that the survey cannot be released for legal reasons. I am concerned that that is being said today, only for us to find out next week that history is repeating itself.
I welcome the fact that Sean Neeson, Mick Murphy and John Kelly have brought this motion forward, and I support it. I also welcome the presence of some campaigners in the Gallery; of the Minister of Health, whose Department plays such a crucial role; and of Carmel Hanna, the Minister for Employment and Learning. Go raibh maith agat.

Prof Monica McWilliams: It is sad that despite the knowledge that Greeks and Romans used asbestos and saw their slaves die of lung disease since before the first century, we were still learning about asbestos in the twentieth century.
Because this is a cross-departmental matter, I want to move directly to recommendations. Sean Neeson mentioned the horrific impact of asbestos on the shipyard workers who came to see us. In March, the Minister, Sir Reg Empey, announced that the Executive would pay out the huge sum of between £40 million and £50 million over the next four years and up to a total of £190 million by 2050. We are paying in the long term for what should have been paid more attention to by employers in the short term.
Achieving civil justice is extremely complicated. Anyone who has gone through the civil courts, whether for personal or business injury claims, will know that. I was shocked to learn that commercial and business compensation cases receive priority. Does every Member know that the courts take commercial and business cases first because they always have a backlog? It can take up to three or four years for asbestosis sufferers to get civil justice, not only because of the complications, but because other cases receive priority. The Department of Finance and Personnel and its Minister, Dr Farren, are responsible for civil justice. We must address that urgently, as was done in Scotland.
One of Scotland’s Justice Committees, of which we do not have an equivalent, recommended that a judge be appointed to take responsibility for the litigation of those cases. Perhaps we should recommend that we examine the issue of civil justice, which is a devolved matter, given the urgency of the situation. However, we should ask the Minister of Finance and Personnel also to appoint a judge. Then we could begin to process cases. Mr Attwood pointed out that we should look at timing because people are dying.
I took a relative through the court process of pursuing a personal injury claim, and it was extremely traumatic. Victims should not be victimised again by the system that they have turned to for help. They are already victims of a terrible illness, and there is a spectrum of illnesses beyond that. I asked a consultant at Belfast City Hospital to explain the range of illnesses that people suffer from when they have been in contact with asbestos. Some illnesses do not manifest themselves for a long time, and some people suffer a horrific type of respiratory illness. It is a terrible way to die, and sufferers’ families have to watch them do so.
They are entitled to justice, because they have contracted the illness as a result of their occupation. In many cases, wives have it as a result of washing clothes that have come into contact with asbestos particles. Some victims’ children have contracted the illness as a consequence of hugging their fathers after work, which every child loves to do. Now we hear that on top of the trauma and heartbreak, sufferers must wade for years through a complicated mess of litigation. A judge should be appointed for the litigation of those cases, which run into thousands. The judge to whom we give the responsibility will have a great deal of work to do. That is one of the more urgent recommendations to the Minister of Finance and Personnel.
We also welcome last week’s judgement in the House of Lords. It is a disgrace that sufferers had to go to the House of Lords to get employers to take responsibility. That leads me to the recommendation to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Its Minister, Sir Reg Empey, has just spoken about limited liability partnerships. In future, we should make it mandatory for employers to state who insures them. Some have gone bankrupt, such as in the case of the shipyard. Consequently, the Executive have taken responsibility for the insurance and are paying out huge sums of money. Since we have just debated liability, we should make it mandatory for companies to publish with whom they have taken out their employer’s liability insurance, as well as their accounts, so that it is not up to solicitors to check who is responsible. To make employer liability insurance mandatory would be a simple yet important measure.
Mr Neeson said that cancer victims face huge complications when dealing with the Department for Social Development. Again I speak from a personal perspective, as my sister has recently been diagnosed with cancer. It is an added burden to have to deal with bureaucracy day after day to check what benefits she is entitled to.
Mr Neeson has reported on a constituent who is already suffering, and who is being told that he will be denied incapacity benefit. Again, that is a disgraceful situation. People are being told what they will be denied, but are they then being told that matters will be sorted out and that they will be informed of what they are entitled to? That issue should be seriously addressed by the Department for Social Development.
The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety recently held an inquiry into cancer services. One of its major findings was the huge amount of bureaucracy that victims of cancer have to suffer in trying to discover their entitlements. For example, if they are self-employed, they need to find out whom they can turn to and whom they can fall back on. A long time can pass before they receive a single penny. My sister was diagnosed three months ago, but she has yet to receive a single penny. That is just one case, but other constituents have told me about the difficulties that they have faced in their illnesses. The Department must carefully consider those serious matters. What happens to people with a specific disease at the point of diagnosis, and how long will it take before they are entitled to some form of welfare, given that they have no other income?
The point has been made about the Housing Executive’s investigation into homes. The debate today seems to have focused on occupational welfare. However, we may be looking at tenants’ welfare in the near future. I urge the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland to publicise information about wearing masks and protective clothing, and to ensure that that information is taken seriously by men. I have spoken to men in the construction industry recently who told me that they are reluctant to wear protective clothing, masks and gloves in case they are seen as being pansies. Is that a weakness in our culture? Is it an attitude that has not been addressed seriously enough? We now know that smoking is a danger to health. So too is exposing oneself to substances that can cause cancers. People must take that seriously. Where employers have failed in their responsibility, individuals must take responsibility for themselves. Health and safety bodies must constantly be urged to put that message across.
I urge the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to give as much support as possible to the Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke Association, which recently came to Stormont to discuss the difficulties that are faced in relation to respiratory illnesses, and the support for the victims of asbestosis, such as the increasing need for nebulisers. We now realise how important it is to have a regional cancer centre. People are coming forward in thousands and are having to go through the antiquated Belvoir Park Hospital. The sooner a decision is reached on the new regional cancer centre, the better.
The Minister for Employment and Learning is present to speak about the Statutory Rules that have recently been introduced. It seems that on the one hand there are flat-rate payments, yet Statutory Rules are constantly being introduced to increase payments in line with inflation. Perhaps there is a less bureaucratic way to look at that entire issue. The debate has not just been about civil justice — it has been widened to take into account all the types of injustice that are currently taking place. That is why I lay the responsibility for that injustice at the doors of many Departments.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I remind the next Member to speak that there is some flexibility on time.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support my Colleagues Mr Neeson and Mr John Kelly in proposing the motion.
The victims of asbestosis, and their families, are calling for compensation claims to be resolved with speed and urgency. They want to see an end to the use of asbestos in buildings. They want the removal of asbestos from roof spaces in all homes, and proper control of that removal, so that workers and householders are not in danger of contamination.
All water main pipes containing asbestos must be removed. The country is full of them, and has been for years. It is ridiculous. Every time such a pipe bursts, it is cut in order to repair it. Asbestos is carried into the water and directly into the home. That is not on; it must stop, and the Minister for Regional Development will have to take it on board.
The situation is improving. New water mains are being installed in many areas. Importantly, however, people are not being told that there is a small percentage of asbestos in the new pipes. It has been denied, but my information categorically shows that there is asbestos in those pipes. It is coated round the outside of the pipe. Burst pipes are repaired by sawing through them. Asbestos, therefore, is getting into the water supply and is causing more problems.
Since the middle of the twentieth century, thousands of victims have suffered a catalogue of problems, including cancer, enormous stress and disabilities. Homes containing asbestos have caused numerous health problems. The Minister of Health must take that on board.
Asbestos victims have never been properly treated or compensated, either by Governments or companies, which are directly responsible. Victims took the health and safety laws that said that asbestos would not kill or cause illness at face value. The Housing Executive is now doing the same thing. Many workers from Harland & Wolff are suffering from exposure to asbestos. What about public liability? For many years, big insurance companies have been getting enormous amounts of money from public liability cover, yet they refuse to pay the victims. It is time that that point was taken on board.
Responsibility lies with the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. They must act now on behalf of the victims. As with the Fairchild judgement, the High Court will force Carmel Hanna’s Department to act. A safety net must be put in place for asbestosis sufferers. Better legislation is required to effectively hold companies to account. I thank all the Members who have supported the motion. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I acknowledge and highlight the very real human cost of this dreadful disease, not only to the individuals who contract it, but also to their families. Through recent coverage, we have all seen the plight of sufferers and how their lives are literally taken away from them, in some cases in just a few short months, leaving their families bereaved and in shock. As a human being, I can only offer my deep sympathies to all those afflicted by this terrible disease.
First, I will refer to the recent House of Lords’ judgement on the Fairchild ruling. Many people in Northern Ireland and Great Britain have been afflicted by dust-related industrial diseases, particularly mesothelioma, as a result of their past working environment. It can be many years before the symptoms are detected. Therefore, a significant period may elapse before sufferers realise that a disease caused by their working environment is afflicting them.
For workers who have been affected by asbestos in their working environment to seek redress, the legal process is clear. Individuals take civil actions against their past employers through the court system. In many cases that worked well and people received appropriate redress. Moreover, where the relevant employer had gone out of business or could not be identified, the Government provided the pneumoconiosis (workers’ compensation) scheme in respect of dust-related diseases, and that is administered by my Department.
However, Members are aware that some people who were exposed to asbestos by more than one employer have had real and substantial difficulties in pursuing their claims. The Court of Appeal explicitly addressed those difficulties in the Fairchild ruling. The effect of that ruling was that sufferers from work-related mesothelioma who had worked for more than one employer were prevented from seeking compensation through the courts if they could not prove which employer was responsible.
In the light of concerns expressed about the Fairchild ruling, I took action in the short term to help affected sufferers from work-related mesothelioma. On 22 April, I announced that the pneumoconiosis scheme in respect of dust-related diseases would be extended to cover qualifying workers affected by the ruling, provided that the eligibility conditions were met. Mesothelioma is a terrible disease, and it would have been dreadfully wrong for former employees and their families to have been left without help as a result of that court judgement.
The Fairchild ruling was taken to the House of Lords, which adjourned the appeal against it until 7 May 2002. On 16 May, it was announced that the House of Lords had set aside the ruling. Although we await the detail of that judgement, my understanding is that people who suffer from work-related mesothelioma and who worked for more than one employer are no longer prevented from seeking compensation through the courts. I am pleased that sufferers now have access to compensation, to which they are rightly entitled.
When the decision by the House of Lords is published, my Department, together with other Departments, must examine the detailed reasons behind it carefully. We can then determine further necessary action in relation to the pneumoconiosis (workers’ compensation) scheme. With regard to primary responsibility for the provision of compensation for sufferers, the current position is clear. Responsibility rests with the employers and their insurers, and, to date, that point seems to have been accepted by insurance companies in the immediate aftermath of the judgement by the House of Lords. My Department will therefore have little change to make to the pneumoconiosis (workers’ compensation) scheme.
My past responses have dealt with the implications of the Fairchild ruling. I recently announced a plan to extend provisions specifically to cover those affected by it. The judgement by the House of Lords may now have made that extension unnecessary. However, my Department will continue to monitor the situation carefully.
It is accepted that the legacy of human suffering resulting from past exposure to asbestos is terrible. Northern Ireland is not unique in that regard. It is currently estimated that in Northern Ireland previous exposure to asbestos causes, or contributes to, approximately 60 to 80 deaths each year. Asbestos-related diseases are currently responsible for an estimated 3,400 deaths a year in Great Britain. It is estimated that the number of deaths resulting from such diseases will not peak for a further 10 to 20 years. Tragically, the full extent of the dangers of asbestos was not realised by Government, employers or employees until it was — sadly — too late for so many people.
Asbestos was used widely in the shipbuilding, ship repair, thermal insulation and building industries from the 1940s to the 1970s, mainly because of its superior insulation and fire-resistant properties.
Asbestos-related diseases remain latent for a long time; typically, 35 to 40 years will elapse between a person’s exposure to the substance and the development of a disease. It was, therefore, only after many workers were exposed to asbestos that the true extent of the danger was fully appreciated and legislation introduced to better control its use. The use of asbestos is banned in Northern Ireland.
We cannot undo what has been done, but we have learnt important lessons, and we should continue to do so. Northern Ireland’s stringent legislation to control the use of asbestos is comparable with that of any other country in Europe. The Health and Safety Executive’s inspectors are responsible for that legislation.
The situation is more complex for private citizens. Responsibility for asbestos control falls to different Government Departments or the court system, depending on such factors as how the material was used, the environment in which it was found and the owner of the premises. Each citizen has a large responsibility for his or her health, safety and welfare. To that end, I am aware of the need for comprehensive, objective information on asbestos and the related health and safety, social and financial issues. That is especially important given that a problem has been identified in Andersonstown, in respect of which I hope an agreement will be reached between the Housing Executive and local residents, whether they own their houses or not.
The debate helped us to identify many information issues that must be addressed. All Departments, including my officials, will take note of all the matters raised and will address them as speedily as possible. I thank the Members who proposed the motion, and those who participated in the debate, for highlighting these important issues that tragically affect many people, and which I hope will be addressed seriously.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am glad that such an important issue has been debated. It is important because asbestosis and related diseases have brought tragedy to many families and have been covered up for many years. I am glad that Robbie Brown and his colleagues are here today with their wives and children. They have fought a tough campaign to highlight the sustained suffering that they have endured without any public or political attention.
I am glad, too, that the Law Lords, in their wisdom, made their recent ruling. Trade unions and lawyers agree that the judgement will help thousands of sufferers and will teach the insurance industry a lesson that it will never forget. The insurance industry has consistently denied its responsibility to those who were left without any recourse to claim compensation for the effects that, unbeknown to them, exposure to asbestos had on them.
The people themselves did not know that they were breathing in death. Death by asbestosis is described as a silent death, a death that comes unnoticed. As someone who served his time in a small Corporation Street marine repair yard in the early 1950s, I know that asbestos was the only material that was available for lagging pipes. It was there in the morning, during the day, in the evening and at tea break. Asbestos was everywhere. It was thrown about, yet people were unaware that they were breathing in death. That alone was bad enough, but it was even worse to discover that insurance companies in particular, and unscrupulous employers, tried to evade their responsibilities. The Law Lords’ judgement has cut off that escape hatch for those unscrupulous employers and insurance companies.
I want to thank those Members who contributed to the debate. Many Members have spoken in support of the motion, and I am glad about that. I will not rehash everything that they said, but all aspects have been well ventilated. Mr Neeson mentioned issues that campaigners against asbestosis raised with us.
The comments on Housing Executive houses in Andersonstown were new to me. I was unaware that that was a factor that caused asbestosis among people who were unaware that they were being exposed to asbestos daily.
I pay tribute to the Assembly’s research services, which supplied us with information on asbestosis and asbestos about which we were unaware. We learned that asbestos was first heard of 2,000 years ago when the Greeks used it for yarn, and people died from lung-related diseases in those days — that is how far back the disease goes.
I recommend that compensation be exclusive of benefits. People who receive compensation should not be punished by having their benefits cut or stopped. That is the current situation for people with asbestosis. Compensation should be payable after someone has died from asbestosis. The wives and children who are left behind should remain beneficiaries of that compensation.
Today I was talking to an Assembly staff member whose father worked in the shipyard. His father recently had an X-ray taken that showed the presence of asbestos fibres on his lungs. That man carried asbestos home from work on his overalls, as did many shipyard workers. Mothers and daughters shook out the overalls and the dust was in the kitchen, the sitting room and the yard. Unknowingly, even the children breathed in death.
I welcome the presence of the Minister for Employment and Learning and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. However, given the seriousness of the subject, it is disappointing that other Ministers are absent.
As Monica McWilliams said, innocent children who hugged their fathers when they came home from work are now infected with asbestosis without knowing it. According to researchers, asbestosis is a silent and invisible killer that lies dormant for up to 40 years before striking in the form of a terrifying and painful illness.
I have just been reminded that Desmond Nesbitt is here. I am sorry for not including the Member in my remarks.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Mr Deputy Speaker, my name is Dermot. Is that the Irish?

Mr John Kelly: I was using the vernacular. Sorry.
One lawyer described the ruling as the most significant decision in the history of industrial disease compensation. Like many people here, I worked in industry. We have been ignored. Diseases such as dermatitis and other industrial-related illnesses have been ignored over the years. This ruling might mark a watershed, and all industrial diseases may now be put under the spotlight and dealt with properly. This case has been settled as we had hoped it would be for those who have suffered silently and for so long from asbestosis.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes the plight of asbestosis sufferers in Northern Ireland and calls for proper civil justice for asbestos victims.

Diabetes

Mr Ivan Davis: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to tackle immediately the serious issue of diabetes commencing with a screening programme for those adults who fall within high risk groups.
I will accept the amendment in the names of Dr Hendron and Mrs Courtney.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr J Wilson] in the Chair)
"Diabetes — possible to deal with, deadly to ignore" is the sound bite used by Diabetes UK, the primary group that represents diabetes sufferers. I thank that group for its work on researching and promoting awareness of the illness. However, the issue is not given the coverage that it deserves in the political arena, and I am grateful, therefore, that time has been set aside for this debate.
I must declare a personal interest, because I suffer from type 2 diabetes. Recently, I was interested to note that the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, is also a sufferer, and I am glad to hear that he is prepared to work with Diabetes UK.
A joint task force on diabetes was established in March 2001 to consider Northern Ireland’s response to the diabetes national service framework in England. Some might argue that the motion should have been debated after the report is published; however, the motion will help to highlight this much-neglected issue and move things forward. As the motion suggests, the debate has two simple objectives. First, the problem must be highlighted, and secondly, we must support the call for a screening process.
The facts about the seriousness of diabetes are startling — even frightening. The disease’s seriousness was highlighted in Diabetes UK’s presentation in the Long Gallery. I congratulate them on the success of that event.
Forty thousand people in Northern Ireland suffer from diabetes. It is estimated that nearly 4,000 people are suffering from it in my constituency, Lagan Valley; in the Health Minister’s constituency, West Belfast, the number of sufferers is approximately 3,500. This includes those who are aware that they have diabetes and those who are not, which is why screening is needed. That is another reason for screening: 25,000 people have the condition but do not actually know, which is worrying. That supports my argument for the introduction of a carefully planned screening programme, but I shall deal with that in more detail later.
As well as affecting many people in Northern Ireland, the condition also has a major impact on NHS resources. This debate comes at a time when the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is continually saying that the NHS is severely underfunded. If diabetes were dealt with more effectively, then the NHS would be able to save substantial resources. Some may question that, but according to Diabetes UK, diabetes accounts for approximately 9% of hospital costs in Northern Ireland, which is the equivalent of over £100 million a year. If diabetes were taken seriously, which is the objective of this motion, the NHS would not only be able to save money, it would also deal more effectively with the condition. Recent research has revealed that in Britain there is a shortage of specialists to deal with diabetes, and I will be pursuing this matter with the Minister to see if the same situation exists in Northern Ireland.
Turning to a screening programme, you may ask what I mean by "serious", and what do I actually want to see happening. As the motion says, it is important that a programme of screening be introduced. This programme would not cover every adult in Northern Ireland — that is not really feasible. I am suggesting that adults in high-risk groups should be screened. For instance, it is recognised that the older you are, the greater the risk of diabetes. Also, diabetes runs in families, and the closer the relative, the greater the risk. It also appears that the vast majority of those with type 2 diabetes are overweight at diagnosis, so certain groups of people are immediately at high risk. Evidence suggests that people with type 2 diabetes have the condition for between nine and 12 years before they are diagnosed. Consequently, over one third of people with type 2 diabetes have at least one complication at the time that happens.
Of course, there are issues and details that need to be carefully considered. For example, how often should screening take place; where would someone go to be screened; and would it be appropriate for pharmacies with adequately trained staff to offer such a facility? Then there are the consequences of screening. If someone is diagnosed with diabetes, support has to be available to him and his family. Diabetes is a chronic condition, and there are many other effects beside the medical ones. Being diagnosed means a change of lifestyle, including employment and insurance matters.
Diabetes UK has been calling for such a screening programme for many years now to reduce the impact of the disease on people and NHS resources. That is why I tabled a question to the Minister on 15 June 2000 on examining the need for a screening programme. However, to the best of my knowledge, nothing has resulted from that.
I urge the Assembly to support this important motion.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I beg to move the following amendment: In line 1 after "Assembly" insert:
"recognises the serious threat to health and to healthcare resources posed by the rapid increase in the incidence of diabetes, looks forward to the publication of the report of the task force on diabetes and"
I thank Mr Davis for tabling the motion and for accepting our amendment, which adds to the motion rather than detracts from it. We want the report of the task force, but we agree with the spirit of the motion and with everything in it.
The initiative on diabetes in Northern Ireland incorporates a multidisciplinary approach and was launched in March 2001. The initiative involved establishing a joint task force between the Clinical Resource Efficiency Support Team (CREST) and Diabetes UK Northern Ireland. The task force is chaired by Dr McClements, who is the first convenor of CREST. It has a broad representation that includes healthcare professionals, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, representatives from public health, education and training, psychology and pharmacy, people with diabetes, and carers and representatives from the Republic of Ireland. It was a response to the national service framework for diabetes in England, Scotland and Wales. A vital factor in the task force’s work is the focus on patient involvement. Crucially, the real experts in living with diabetes — the patients — have been central to shaping its work.
We musk ask what diabetes is and how much we know about it. It is defined as a chronic condition in which the amount of glucose or sugar in the blood is too high because the body cannot use it properly. Normally, the body produces a hormone called insulin that helps the glucose to move from the blood into the cells where it is used as fuel by the body. Forty thousand people in Northern Ireland have diabetes, and it is estimated that a further 25,000 remain undiagnosed. One pound in every seven spent in the Health Service here goes toward diabetic care. Better education may lead to prevention in future and therefore reduce spending.
As the condition is largely treatable, it tends not to be taken as seriously as it would be were the full implications known. These include blindness — diabetes is the main cause of blindness in people of working age in the United Kingdom. Diabetes is also the main cause of end-stage kidney failure and a main cause of lower limb amputation. I know that because three young cousins of mine died, and they all had to have toes amputated before their deaths. Diabetes increases a person’s chance of a stroke by three, and it increases a person’s risk of heart disease by five. It can also seriously damage other parts of the body.
Ignorance is a major problem with diabetes. People read up on its dangers only after they have been diagnosed — when it is already too late. We must find out why the condition is chronic.
There are two types of diabetes. In type 1, the immune system turns against the body, destroys the insulin and produces cells in the pancreas. This results in a complete deficiency of insulin. It is most often diagnosed in children and young people, although it can occur at any age. Symptoms are often marked, and diagnosis usually follows quickly. It is treated with insulin injections and by change of diet.
Type two is caused by a shortage of insulin or by a fault in the body’s response to insulin. Most people will have type 2, which mainly affects people over 40. The symptoms are less marked, with the result that it often goes undiagnosed. Type 2 can be treated by diet alone, by diet and tablets or by diet and insulin injections.
What are the dangers if it is not diagnosed? Too many people are diagnosed so late that they are already developing complications by the time of diagnosis. On average, people will have type 2 diabetes for nine to 12 years before diagnosis, and up to 50% of them develop complications by the time they are diagnosed. Only 46% of people know that death is a possible result of diabetes. There is diabetes in my family; two of my cousins died of diabetes in their 40s. It is a killer. Of those at highest risk, 76% do not know that they are in danger. Too many people are suffering and dying unnecessarily as a result of the complications they develop — complications that can be avoided, and one of the most proficient ways of doing that is to raise awareness dramatically of the condition, highlight the symptoms and promote a positive, preventative approach. Increased thirst, going to the toilet excessively, especially at night, extreme tiredness, weight loss and blurred vision are some of the symptoms to look out for.
The best way of avoiding diabetes, as well as many other illnesses, is to follow a healthy diet. Keeping blood sugar levels within healthy limits is a keystone of diabetes management. Preventing diabetes therefore means avoiding sugary foods, and targeting foods with a low glycaemic index such as unrefined brown rice and bread, oats and grains, following the recommended nutritional guidelines of eating five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, drinking lots of water and getting plenty of exercise.
Diabetes can adversely affect everyday living in other ways. Unless their diabetes is very well controlled, those taking insulin may be precluded from taking some jobs in, for example, the Police Service, the Fire and Ambulance Services, the armed forces and the merchant navy and the Prison Service. They cannot be train drivers, airline pilots, air traffic controllers, cabin crew (on some airlines only) or have any job which requires a HGV or passenger-carrying licence. Some local authorities have a blanket ban on all types of drivers, including cab drivers, who have been diagnosed as having diabetes. As has already been stated, having diabetes can affect a person’s ability to drive, and if one has been diagnosed, one must tell the vehicle licensing authority and one’s insurance company. If the diabetes is well-controlled and a person takes care, he should be able to do most jobs.
People should remember that they are in control, and there are diabetic specialist nurses in most hospitals who will give advice if anyone is in doubt. People who are on insulin should carry it with them and avoid a hypoglycaemic attack — where blood sugar falls to a dangerous level. They should also keep a sweet drink, for example, Lucozade with them. I agree with screening and family members should be screened.
The task force will distribute the draft recommendations for consultation over the summer, and the completed guidelines will be published in the autumn of 2002. This Assembly must recognise that these recommendations represent the best opportunity to establish an effective framework to ensure quality healthcare for those with diabetes living in Northern Ireland. The Executive must prioritise diabetes in a meaningful way and resource the task force’s recommendations fully or the problem will spiral into the next century.

Rev William McCrea: I welcome the opportunity to support the motion and the amendment, which Mr Davis has already accepted. I congratulate him for bringing this very important debate to the House today.
Diabetes is undoubtedly a condition with which all Members will be familiar. Three in every 100 persons are now likely to be affected by it, so I would be most surprised to learn that there was anyone in the Chamber who did not have some knowledge of the disease in either of its two forms.
I would like to draw particular attention to the earnest, hard work done by voluntary groups throughout the Province. Mr Davis has already mentioned that, and I concur with his remarks, because as well as providing a forum for those people who have the condition, they have offered support for their families, friends and carers.
Significant advances have been made in our understanding of diabetes and in our capacity to treat those who have been diagnosed with the illness to enable them to live longer and healthier lives. However, as well as those whom we know have been diagnosed as having diabetes, there are those who have not yet been diagnosed, and I will come to the reasons for that.
It is the strategy of many of those groups to bring so much attention to the subject that diabetes can no longer be ignored as a healthcare priority in Northern Ireland. It is no longer an option to deny the seriousness of the disease. It is a lifelong chronic condition, and it is rapidly increasing.
As the Diabetes UK Northern Ireland association said when it lobbied us in the Assembly last month, diabetes has become an issue that is "too deadly to ignore". Recent figures bear testimony to that, and I congratulate it on its straightforward presentation. This is a very clear and stark reality: diabetes is too deadly to ignore.
There are 65,000 diabetes sufferers in Northern Ireland. While the known figure is 40,000, the worrying facts show that 25,000 people do not know that they have it. From speaking with diabetes sufferers in my constituency I have learnt that it is not uncommon for a person to live with type 2 diabetes for nine to 12 years before it is diagnosed. That is totally unacceptable, and one of the reasons we are having this debate.
Consequently, over one third of those with type 2 diabetes have established complications on diagnosis that might not have developed had they been detected earlier. There is a need for prevention and early screening, particularly for high-risk groups such as those with a family history of diabetes, those aged between 40 and 75 — and that will include quite a number in the Chamber — and those who are overweight, which will include some more in the Chamber.
I was concerned when I read in a recent communication from a diabetes support group in Mid Ulster that many have died prematurely or have developed diabetes complications such as heart disease, stroke and blindness simply because they went undiagnosed for years and were completely unaware that they had this life-threatening condition.
It is not widely known that diabetes can kill. Each year, thousands of lives are blighted by a condition that can be treated successfully. That is the other side. It can kill — "too deadly to ignore" — but it can be treated successfully if detected early. It is important to remember that life expectancy is reduced, on average, by more than 20 years for people with type 1 diabetes and by up to 10 years for people with type 2.
Mortality rates from coronary heart disease are up to five times higher in people with diabetes, while the risk of a stroke is up to three times higher. Those are startling figures and merit serious consideration. Diabetes is the leading cause of renal failure, accounting for more than one in six people starting renal replacement therapy, the second most common cause of lower limb amputation and the leading cause of blindness in people of working age. With that being a factor, and medical science knowing it, why is the Health Service not taking it more seriously and dealing with it?
Diabetes leads to additional risks in pregnancy. Women with diabetes have an increased chance of losing the baby during pregnancy or at birth, of having a baby with a congenital malformation and of the baby dying in infancy. That shows the seriousness of the situation.
The ability to recognise the symptoms and the increasing of public awareness through the introduction of screening programmes are the key recommendations for dealing with diabetes in England. I have no doubt that such principles will also find a place in the Northern Ireland task force’s report on diabetes.
The number of people affected by diabetes in Northern Ireland is expected to double by 2010. That will undoubtedly put a severe toll on an already overstretched health budget. What is being done to address the situation? The presence of diabetic complications increases National Health Service costs more than fivefold, as it does the chance of a person needing hospital admission.
Diabetes also has a profound impact on social services costs, with one in 20 people incurring annual costs whether in residential care or at home. That puts another strain on the Health Service. However, we always return to the fact that diabetes can be treated and can be cured. Research has shown that early screening, especially of high-risk groups, has the potential to save lives and improve the quality of life. It is essential that the public are made aware of what screening programmes are available, and the importance of having a particular test or examination must be emphasised.
A modern, patient-focused approach is required that will not only deliver a strategy aimed at care and prevention through an appropriate screening programme, but will provide a service of first choice, not one of last resort.
I support the motion and the amendment.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Ivan Davis, Joe Hendron and Annie Courtney for tabling the motion and the amendment to it. Like other Members, I commend the community and voluntary organisations for their valuable work in this field, not only for sufferers of diabetes, but for their families too — because the disease has a knock-on effect.
I do not intend to repeat all the figures that have been highlighted. Ivan Davis pointed out that 40,000 people here suffer from diabetes and that a further 25,000 are unaware that they have the disease. That is a matter for concern, because people will have lifestyle problems and remain unaware of their cause. It has been pointed out that the effects of diabetes include heart disease, kidney disease, blindness and, most surprisingly, premature death. Some sufferers of the disease also have to have limbs amputated, so it is crucial that those facts are publicised.
I thank Ivan Davis for accepting the amendment tabled by Dr Hendron and Mrs Courtney. I welcome the thinking behind the motion. On reading it, I can see that a common sense approach is the most sensible way ahead. We are targeting those adults who are in the high-risk group. There is no evidence to suggest that universal screening would be effective. The motion does not call for universal screening; it is about targeting and identifying adults in the high-risk group.
There is emerging evidence that it may be good clinical practice and cost-effective to offer screening to sub-groups of the population who present multiple risk factors for diabetes. As many of the risk factors are similar, that could be combined with screening for cardiovascular disease. The evidence, however, is not definitive, so the screening committee has recommended further analysis of the existing research as well as further research into which sub-groups should be included in the screening programme, how to identify the people in those groups, whether it is better to rely on opportunistic screening by healthcare professionals, the sort of tests that should be used, how often people should be tested and the balance between the benefits and the drawbacks of early diagnosis.
The task force that was set up in 2001 is due to report in the autumn. One issue arising from the screening committee’s work is the importance of early detection of diabetes, but there is a possibility that — and I could be wrong — the task force will wait for evidence from the screening committee, and that could take up until 2005.
Members have highlighted the different causes of type 2 diabetes, and I do not think that I should waste anyone’s time by going over them. The causes can be genetic or related to lifestyle or social class. With regard to prevention, Members have a duty to highlight the ‘Investing for Health’ strategy, which was announced by the Health Minister some weeks ago. All Ministers and Departments are responsible for delivering on it. It involves the promotion of physical activity and improvements in diet and nutrition, the prevention of obesity and a reduction in the number of people who are overweight — I am a classic example of that.
As Members have said, it is better to prevent diabetes than to treat it, and we can take that from the ‘Investing for Health’ strategy. The Minister for Social Development is committed to removing 8,000 households a year from fuel poverty. That is a core aspect of deprivation. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is committed to pursuing an increase in participation in sporting activities. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has a ‘Be Active, Be Healthy’ strategy. The Department of Education is implementing its ‘Catering for Healthier Lifestyles’ strategy in September 2002. Although we are talking about diabetes and the responsibility of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and, ultimately, the Minister, the ‘Investing for Health’ strategy has to come into play because we are talking about prevention as well as cure.
I have one concern about the amendment. Although we agree to support it, the members in whose name it is are looking forward to the report of the joint task force, but they then go on to say that we should introduce screening now. We are probably pre-empting the outcome of the task force. However, the motion, as amended, is very good, and Sinn Féin will be supporting it.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I will support any proposal or amendment that seeks to help the plight of people suffering from diabetes. I also welcome the presence of the Minister here today. I see that she is taking notes, and I am sure that she will act when the opportunity arises. I also attended the presentation in the Long Gallery a few days ago, and I pay tribute to those people who so ably explained the suffering and needs of diabetics and all the risks associated with the disease.
As health spokesperson for the Alliance Party, I am extremely concerned at the apparent lack of knowledge. Mr Davis commented on the lack of public knowledge of this terrible disease. The leaflet that was produced by Diabetes UK gives some startling statistics, and it must make public representatives and health providers sit up, take notice and do something. The figures are astronomical. Diabetes accounts for 9% of NHS spending — some £14 million a day throughout the United Kingdom.
This figure could be reduced drastically if the disease were treated in its early stages or prevented in the first place.
Diabetes UK has described the disease as the epidemic of the twenty-first century. Unless urgent action is taken by the Department of Health, things can only get worse. Currently 40,000 people in Northern Ireland have been diagnosed with diabetes, which leads to heart disease, blindness, kidney disease, lower limb amputation and finally death. These figures are expected to increase twofold unless drastic action is taken to call a halt to the epidemic.
The Northern Ireland Task Force on Diabetes is currently conducting an inquiry, and we look forward to its recommendations, which will be reported in September or October. We will then look to the Executive to prioritise diabetes and to provide funding so that it can be eradicated as far as possible. We need early detection and early remedies to surmount the disease. I support the motion and the amendment.

Mr Tom Hamilton: Rev McCrea mentioned that many Members know someone who suffers from diabetes; my mother has the condition. I am glad that the debate is taking place, and I look forward to positive action in this area.
Diabetes UK’s Northern Ireland representative, Stephen McGowan, is in the Public Gallery to listen to the debate. I have had a long series of discussions with him. It is estimated that 3,746 people in my constituency of Strangford suffer from diabetes. However, the figure includes 1,000 people who are not yet aware that they have the disease. If anyone asks why we need a screening programme, they should be shown those figures as well as others quoted by Members. I agree with my Colleague, Mr Davis, that any such screening programme should not be aimed indiscriminately at adults in the Province; it should target high-risk groups such as the elderly and those with a family connection to the condition.
It is worrying that many people do not consider diabetes to be a serious condition. This point was recently reinforced by Diabetes UK, which commented that 46% of people in Northern Ireland do not realise that diabetes can be fatal. It is also interesting — but disturbing — that 76% of people who are at high risk from diabetes do not know that they are. The issue must be dealt with in a sensible and correct manner, starting with a screening programme.
I look forward to the report of the Northern Ireland Task Force on Diabetes, and I congratulate Diabetes UK and the Clinical Resource Efficiency Support Team (CREST) on the task force’s wide-ranging membership. Hopefully this will result in a report full of helpful suggestions that will not be set aside by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Indeed, it should be analysed carefully and any useful policies or measures should be implemented as soon as is practicable.
It is worth noting the link between diabetes and mental health. Four in every 10 people who suffer from diabetes will also suffer from depression or anxiety. Research conducted by Dr David Knopman in the United States argues that there is a link between diabetes and mental illness. He comments that
"Treatment of diabetes is important even in middle age, not just in the elderly, for preventing cognitive decline in later life. Therefore treatment must not be left until the last possible moment and a screening programme would help to develop an efficient and earlier response to diabetes."
The National Health Service should work closely on matters of mental health to get to the root of the problem. In Northern Ireland, there is a lack of psychological support for diabetics. As far as I am aware, there is no such support outside Belfast. Mental illness, such as depression, can lead to severe worsening of diabetes.
Diabetes is not being taken seriously enough, as is demonstrated by its rapid rise throughout the UK. With that in mind, I strongly support the motion, and I hope that the Minister will not easily dismiss the House’s views.

Mr Jim Shannon: Ilka sennicht it seems that we’r protestin that ae group or anither in the Halth Service hae its parteiclar wants an misters wrut lairge. A — an, A’m shuir, a whein ither fowk in this Chaumer — can haurdlie credit it that, insteid o the Meinister warin siller whaur it’s nott, the’r siller gaein on haivers the lyke o signs. Gif siller wes wared on immident problems an investit in hinnerin disaise, we’d mebbe see the Halth Service back on its pins insteid o gettin slawlie smusht unner the wecht o fowk waitin on tent, traetment an help.
Diabetes haes neir cum an epidemic in this kintra, wi mair nor 40,000 tholin a disaise that taks fowk doun awthegither whyles, causin hert an neir problems alang wi blinndness an bluidflaw problems as can cum aff in the amputation o airms an legs. The exeistence o this wapon-gret percentage o fowk in Norlin Airland is made mair complicate wi fower in 10 o thir fowk tholin gloums an stress. As Paul Street fae Diabetes UK haes alloued, "Diabetes is ower deidlie ti sling a deifie."
It seems that every week the Assembly calls for one group or another in the Health Service to have its wants and needs highlighted. It is incredible that money is spent on signage and trivial things instead of being spent where it is needed. If money were spent on immediate problems and invested in preventing disease, perhaps the National Health Service would recover instead of being slowly squashed under the weight of people who are waiting for care, treatment and help.
Diabetes has become almost epidemic in Northern Ireland. Over 40,000 people suffer from a disease that can be debilitating, can cause heart and kidney problems, blindness and circulation problems that can lead to the amputation of limbs. Four in 10 of these huge numbers also suffer from depression and stress. Paul Street of Diabetes UK has told us that diabetes is too deadly to ignore.
One of the main reasons for the increase in diabetes is obesity. More and more children, as well as adults, are obese because of their sedentary lifestyles. Children and adults alike are more likely to be found in front of the television than walking or playing sport on sunny evenings — when we ever have them. While people sit in front of the television, they seem to be eating more processed fatty foods, which contribute to the growing numbers of overweight people. That means that 20,000 diabetics could be dying from coronary heart disease. Diabetics aged under 20 die mainly from diabetic ketosis. All those deaths are preventable.
It is a startling fact that most people with type 2 diabetes have had the condition for between nine and 12 years before they are diagnosed and have usually acquired some of the most severe symptoms. Therefore, their treatment is more involved and puts an increasing strain not only on them but also on the Health Service that we all subscribe to.
It is estimated that at least 50% of GP surgeries have no policy for screening patients for diabetes. That is incredible, given that at least 4% of the population of Northern Ireland suffer from diabetes. Therefore, many people have lost the opportunity to be diagnosed early and to receive preventative procedures before the disease gets out of control and kills them. Perhaps we can have some response about preventative medicine and actions.
A test for diabetes can be as simple as an eye test. Inevitably, there will be initial costs, but fewer patients would occupy hospital beds because they could control their diabetes through diet, exercise and insulin. That is a clear example of spending money to save money in the long run. Is the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety too short-sighted to see what the rest of us see — that an impending diabetes epidemic is about to take hold of the country? Many Members were impressed by the facts that were outlined and the concerns that were expressed in a presentation about diabetes in the Long Gallery.
If something as simple as an eye test could save someone’s life, it is surely the duty of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and, indeed, of Government to initiate such a programme. It is estimated that at least one million people have diabetes but do not know it and may have to wait nine to 12 years before it is detected. Those one million people — roughly the population of Northern Ireland — could be helped if the Government, and especially the Department, took it upon themselves to be forward-thinking, and progressive and if, instead of dealing with the consequences, they deal with the threat before it grips the nation completely.
It was revealed in the press yesterday that the number of diabetes specialists is not adequate to deal with the growing numbers of people being diagnosed. That is another issue that the Department can address. It is also thought that the current failure to obtain enough specialists means that the Health Service will be short of specialists for years to come, which will compound the situation. That is another reason for a preventative rather than a curative programme.
At least three quarters of the people at the greatest risk of developing diabetes have no idea that they fall into that category. All those statistics are frightening to people on the street — however, they are real. Something must be done about the situation now.
The diabetic epidemic costs the National Health Service £165 a second, or £9,900 a minute. Imagine how much has been spent while we have been debating the issue and how much will be spent by the time we are finished. The mind boggles, especially when most of the money need not have been spent had there been adequate screening and education, and enough staff in the Health Service, to deal with the disease. I support the amendment and the motion.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I congratulate Mr Shannon on his frequent use of Ulster Scots. It takes me back to my school days when I was taught Robbie Burns. It is good to hear it spoken in the Chamber.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate because like asbestosis, which was the subject of an earlier debate, diabetes is a silent disease that creeps up on people and, suddenly they are diagnosed as being diabetic. Increasingly, diabetes is affecting young children. A screening programme may have merits. However, there is much debate about the task force, and, in the context of the amendment, I wonder whether we should wait for its report in the autumn. The task force in England does not intend to report until 2005. It is unlikely that the autumn report will contain evidence better than that of the National Screening Committee (NSC). Perhaps we should wait for clear evidence. We should hear the task force’s recommendations before we jump immediately into a screening programme, important as such a programme would undoubtedly be.
Diabetes is present in my family. I know its effects, the tests that children and adults must undergo, and what one must do to ensure that one does not develop it. The effects of diabetes include heart disease, kidney disease, amputation, blindness and premature death. Some 30 years ago, diabetes caused the blindness and death of a first cousin of mine, when treatment was not as good as it is today. Diabetes accounts for 9% of NHS resources, which is £100 million a year.
I agree with the motion and its contention that there is merit in introducing a screening programme. There is, however, also merit in waiting for the task force to tell us how to develop such a programme. How should people in high-risk groups be identified? Is it better to rely on opportunistic screening by healthcare professionals? What type of test should be used and how often should people be tested? What are the benefits and drawbacks of early diagnosis? As yet, there is no definitive evidence that early detection prevents complications.
We should promote prevention. Drinking, smoking and obesity are separate from heredity. Promoting physical activity, good diet and nutrition and reducing obesity are all important.
I support the motion and the amendment. However, there is a contradiction in the amendment. It is saying that we support the immediate introduction of a screening process while we look forward to the publication of the task force’s report, which could be significant. We should perhaps give that time to develop. This is a very serious issue and I congratulate Ivan Davis for raising it.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Uasal Davis as an cheist thábhachtach seo a tharraingt anuas. Gabhaim buíochas fosta le bean Courtney agus leis an Dr Hendron as a leasú ar rún an Uasail Davis. Is fíor dóibh agus do chainteoirí eile gur galar an-chontúirteach é diaibéiteas agus gur cúis imní ar leith dúinne anseo é. Caithfidh mé a rá nach bhfuil leisce ar bith orm teacht leo ina mbarúil. Cé nach bhfuil aon fhigiúirí beachta ar fáil, meastar go bhfuil diaibéiteas ar idir a dó agus a trí faoin chéad den daonra: sin idir tríocha cúig mhíle agus caoga míle duine.
Buaileann sé óg agus aosta araon — agus is léanmhar a iarmhairtí ar gach a mbuaileann sé. Tá laghdú suntasach ar ionchas saoil na ndaoine sin a bhfuil diaibéiteas orthu. An té a bhfuil diaibéiteas air, tá sé cúig huaire chomh dóiche bás a fháil le taom croí ná duine gan diaibéiteas agus trí huaire chomh dóiche bás a fháil de bharr stróic. Mar a chuala muid cheana i rith na díospóireachta, is é diaibéiteas an chúis is mó le cliseadh duánach — ós cionn duine as gach seisear a thosaíonn ar chóireáil scagdhealaithe is mar thoradh ar chliseadh duánach é. Is é an dara cúis is mó é le teascadh géige íochtaraí, agus is é is mó is cúis le daille i measc daoine in aois oibre.
Tá an diaibéiteas a fhorbraíonn níos deireannaí i saol an duine fhásta ag éirí níos coitianta anseo agus ar fud an domhain ós rud é go bhfuil daoine ag titim chun feola agus ag tabhairt saol níos lú gníomhach. Is coscrach an scéala é fosta go bhfuil an cineál seo diaibéitis ag goilleadh ar dhéagóirí fiú féin, rud a bhí beagnach gan iomrá roinnt blianta ó shin.
I thank Mr Davis for tabling what is an important motion, and I thank Mrs Courtney and Dr Hendron for tabling the amendment. I agree with the Members who spoke that diabetes is a serious disease. I thank and praise the representatives of the community and voluntary groups that are here today.
Although no exact figures are available, it is estimated that between 2% and 3% of the population has diabetes, which represents between 35,000 and 50,000 people. As several Members said, diabetes can strike old and young alike, with equally devastating affects. Life expectancy for diabetics is considerably reduced, and a person with diabetes is five times more likely to die of a heart attack and three times more likely to die of a stroke. Diabetes is the leading cause of renal failure, and it accounts for more than one in six people starting dialysis treatment. It is the second most common cause of lower limb amputation and is the leading cause of blindness among people of working age.
As a result of increases in levels of obesity and the tendency for people to lead less active lives, diabetes that develops later in adult life is becoming more common both here and throughout the world. It is distressing to learn that that type of diabetes is affecting teenagers — a situation that was almost unheard of a few years ago.
Influencing the eating patterns of children and young people offers us the potential to improve their health immediately and to help prevent the onset of diabetes in later life. Eating habits that are established early in life are often maintained in adulthood, when they can be much more difficult to change. Research indicates that children’s food preferences strongly influence meals served in the home, which is why it is important that parents ensure that children eat a healthy diet. As Members have stated, prevention is vital.
Diabetes places a significant financial burden on health and social services. Estimates suggest that approximately £1 from every £7 of the total health budget is spent on caring for people with diabetes. The draft position report that I forwarded to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety on 17 April states that the costs associated with the treatment of diabetes in the NHS are thought to amount to 9% of total hospital costs. That funding would provide support to diabetes services at the interface between primary and secondary care, and could ensure that the condition be more aggressively treated in the community. As Members stated, the cost of the disease, in financial and personal terms, is considerable. The position report also states that failure to improve the health of our people not only adds to patients’ distress but adds to pressure on expensive hospital services. Therefore, the Department has bid for considerable funding to provide services that improve the health of our population.
I should also like to highlight some of the positive aspects of diabetes care. Medical research has transformed our understanding of the disease’s development in the first instance and its progression once it has developed. That knowledge is a powerful ally for diabetics and for the professionals charged with their care. As has been said, that research now shows that the most common form of diabetes that occurs in adulthood can be prevented. Lack of physical activity and obesity are the main risk factors. Therefore, integrated action is required to reduce the numbers of people who are physically inactive, overweight and obese. Promotion of a balanced diet and increased physical activity can do that. Members mentioned some of the ongoing and planned activities that several Departments are undertaking.
The principles laid out in ‘Investing for Health’ are the way forward to tackle many of those problems. As we know, ‘Investing for Health’ is the strategy that was drawn up by the ministerial group on public health, which I launched on behalf of the Executive. I chair that group, and senior officials from all Departments are members. The strategy’s title was chosen because we recognise that by investing even modest amounts of money, time and resources we can make great savings and bring great benefits for the future.
Health professionals and patients are now armed with the knowledge that rigorous control of diabetes can also substantially reduce the onset of complications that it causes. It is heartening to hear of the dedicated work of teams of professionals involved in primary care, community health services or hospitals. They conscientiously monitor their patients for diabetic complications and liaise effectively with each other to ensure that access to appropriate treatment is available as and when required.
A vital example of that work includes initiatives to detect harmful changes in the eyes of those already diagnosed with diabetes. If treated early, blindness can be prevented. Support for the patient, especially empowerment through education, is increasingly seen as an important part of the health professional’s role. With heightened public awareness about diabetes, the rates of diagnosis of the disease are rising. I am glad that public awareness has increased; that is important.
Responsibility for managing the care of patients with diabetes falls largely to GPs and other primary care professionals. Against that background, the management of diabetes care is an area on which many of the new local health and social care groups may choose to focus. One of the primary care commissioning pilots — the forerunners of the local health and social care groups that are being set up — identified the provision of an enhanced local service to people with diabetes as one of its targets. That recognised that many of the more serious problems caused by diabetes, such as heart disease, strokes, kidney failure and blindness could be prevented or delayed by good diabetes care, especially in the early stages of the disease. A task group made up of representatives of GPs, community dieticians, podiatrists, specialist nurses and others involved in the care of patients with diabetes was, as has been heard, formed to design a service for patients based on best practice. As a result, guidelines were drawn up on the care of patients with diabetes. Patients, GPs and other local professionals are following those guidelines. The primary care commissioning pilot was able to do some of that work. The establishment of local health and social care groups will offer similar opportunities for primary care professionals to work together in seeking to improve diabetes care for their patients.
There has been much debate among professionals and the public who are interested in diabetes as to whether there should be a screening programme for the disease. Most people’s instincts lead them to think that that could only be a good idea. After all, it is a common condition with serious complications, especially if left unchecked. However, screening is a complex issue and demands close scrutiny of all the available scientific evidence. There is no recommendation in the English national service framework for diabetes to screen the general population for diabetes.
The framework recommends that awareness of symptoms be increased among professionals and the public. It also suggests that, following further research, a screening programme for high-risk groups may be introduced.
The UK National Screening Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, Dr Henrietta Campbell, is responsible for providing advice on all aspects of screening policy, including the matter of whether programmes should be started, stopped or amended. The committee provides advice to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department of Health in England and analogous Departments in Scotland and Wales. The committee assesses proposed screening programmes against internationally recognised criteria, studying details relating to the condition in question, the test, treatment options, their effectiveness and the acceptability of the screening programme to its intended recipients. Assessing programmes in this way is intended to ensure that they do more good than harm at a reasonable cost.
The committee considered a universal screening programme for diabetes against the criteria, and concluded that screening the whole population for diabetes would be an impractical and inefficient use of resources.
That brings me to this motion, which calls for a screening programme targeted at adults and high-risk groups. For several reasons, diabetes may be present for several years before it is recognised. Some people may have no symptoms, while others may ascribe symptoms such as tiredness and lethargy to the rigours of everyday life. Health professionals can also misinterpret the symptoms of diabetes when people initially present to them, so half of those diagnosed with diabetes may have developed a complication by the time it is detected. In some cases, that can have very serious consequences, such as permanent damage to eyes or kidneys. Therefore, it is vital that people with diabetes are diagnosed as early as possible. Greater awareness of the symptoms of the onset of diabetes among health professionals and the public is also essential so that it can be diagnosed as early as possible.
Some people are known to be at an increased risk of developing diabetes. This is particularly the case with people who are overweight, have a family history of diabetes, or come from certain ethnic minority groups where diabetes is more common. Other people in this category include people who have had abnormal blood sugar tests in the past and women who have temporarily developed diabetes during pregnancy. These people must receive regular check ups so that, should diabetes develop, it can be detected quickly.
Many health and social care professionals come into contact with people with diabetes and those who could go on to develop the condition. The need for increased awareness applies particularly to primary care staff, community healthcare staff and hospital staff. Other professionals such as pharmacists, optometrists, dentists and podiatrists have a role to play. Residential and nursing home staff who care for the elderly also have a vital part to play in detecting the condition in elderly residents.
I am pleased that the UK National Screening Committee has proposed detailed research that will examine the feasibility of screening individuals perceived to be at risk of developing diabetes. In such matters, as Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I need to be guided by expert medical advice. I await the results of the research and the outcome of the committee’s deliberations before deciding whether a screening programme for high-risk adults is appropriate and, if so, what form it should take.
With regard to the immediate future, I am also aware of the excellent work of the joint task force here. The entire range of interested health professionals and patients are represented in the group, which is in the process of completing a framework for diabetes care that will set standards for the detection and management of the condition. I understand that it will also specifically consider any gaps in service provision and that workforce issues are of great importance. We must examine all disciplines, including doctors, nurses, dieticians and podiatrists to name but a few, to ensure adequate provision in all areas. My officials and I will consider carefully their recommendations to see how the proposals can be used to enhance services for people with diabetes.
A significant degree of psychological morbidity, including depression and anxiety, is linked to diabetes.

Mr Jim Wilson: Minister, time has run out.

Dr Joe Hendron: This is one of the more important debates that we have had in the Assembly. I congratulate Ivan Davis for bringing this important motion before us and thank him for accepting the amendment in my name and that of my Colleague Annie Courtney.
Taking in the extended family, there is hardly a family in Northern Ireland that does not have somebody or somebody close to it who has diabetes. Mention has already been made of the genetic aspects, and diabetes tends to run in families. We know about obesity, about inactivity and, of course, about eating rubbish — the recommendation that people eat five portions of fruit and vegetables daily was referred to earlier. It is so important to prevent diabetes, cancer and heart disease in children and young people that that message is taken on board. I appreciate that many areas of the Health Service, including the Health Promotion Agency, have done so. However, it cannot be overemphasised.
I appreciate the Minister’s being present. In her remarks she said that diabetes can often be prevented, and that is a key point. Also, rigorous control of diabetes can prevent complications. Apart from prevention, the most important thing is early diagnosis. Diabetes is increasing worldwide, and it can have a major impact on the physical, psychological and material well-being of individuals and their families. Everyone is aware of heart disease, stroke and renal failure, but diabetics are more than twice as likely to die prematurely as a result of their condition. I will not go over the statistics. Somebody said that £1 in every £7 spent by the National Health Service goes on diabetes. It is interesting that in the United States $1 in every $7 spent on health goes on diabetes.
There is evidence that type 2 diabetes, which is where insulin is required, can be delayed or even prevented. Effective management of the condition increases life expectancy and reduces the chances of complications. Type 2 diabetes is more common among poor people. The most deprived, one fifth of the population, are one and a half times more likely to have it. We require more investment in structured education, as many studies now show that poor people need to be informed.
Much has been said about the health action zones in Northern Ireland, which do great work in disseminating good practice. Those who are physically inactive or overweight are at increased risk of developing diabetes, and there is considerable scope across different Departments in this regard.
I also want to praise the work of the voluntary bodies, especially Diabetes UK. Kate Fleck and Stephen McGowan were mentioned earlier, and I pay tribute to them. I was not at the presentation in the Long Gallery, through no fault of mine, but I believe it was excellent.
As the prevalence of diabetes rises steeply with age, it is inevitable that this will become an increasing problem, given the demographic trends. One in five people over the age of 85 has diabetes, and older people need well co-ordinated, multidisciplinary care across primary, secondary and residential care and social services. They require information, education and support to help them manage diabetes, and staff need proper training to recognise their healthcare needs. With diabetes more common in the elderly, it has been said by one medical researcher that if people lived long enough, they would all get it. I am not sure if that is correct, but there is a point there. We require a strategic approach to address the whole system; otherwise there will be inefficiency in the allocation and use of existing resources.
The regional task force on diabetes should closely consider the second part of the diabetes national service framework due for publication this summer. This will set out the action required by local health and social care systems — milestones, performance management and programmes to support local delivery. I am aware that the Minister has some of the top experts in Northern Ireland on the task force. Both Prof Brew Atkinson, whom some of us have met here in the Assembly, and Prof David Hadden are on it. It is chaired by Dr Philip McClements, who is a former deputy chief medical officer, and the vice chairperson is Kate Fleck of Diabetes UK. The findings of this task force will be most important.
Diabetes is the epidemic of the twenty-first century. We have some recommendations from the task force in draft form, and failure to implement them will result in the cost of diabetes, both the human and the financial cost, spiralling out of control. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about screening. However, I would take a positive attitude towards a screening programme for adults who fall into high-risk groups.

Mr Ivan Davis: I thank Members for taking part in this good, constructive debate. Both of the debates this afternoon are important. They are a credit to the Assembly — debating issues that affect the people of Northern Ireland is what the Assembly is about.
Two years ago, I put a question to the Minister about setting up a screening programme. We are still waiting for that. I welcome the fact that the Minister is here this afternoon. However, as Dr Hendron said, this is not an issue that can wait. Every Member who spoke this afternoon made the point that this must be done. The Minister talked about the cost. We must get on with this, because more and more children are being born with diabetes, and more and more children are affected.
When I go to my GP, he tells me that diabetes is vastly on the increase. He gave me a video to watch when I was first diagnosed. After watching that video for 19 minutes, I became an entirely different person, because it scared the life out of me. If nothing else, if people could even be given some kind of information by way of videos and so forth, it might alert them and wake them up to what this illness is all about.
I thank those who took part in the debate and sincerely hope that the Minister will keep a close eye on the situation.
Question,
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly recognises the serious threat to health and to healthcare resources posed by the rapid increase in the incidence of diabetes, looks forward to the publication of the report of the task force on diabetes and calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to tackle immediately the serious issue of diabetes commencing with a screening programme for those adults who fall within high risk groups.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker.]

Future Planning Development in Downpatrick

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the Business Committee for the opportunity to discuss this important and urgent matter affecting the town and people of Downpatrick. At the outset, I want to say a word of appreciation to the Minister of the Environment for attending and taking part in the debate, although he has said that ultimately it is the Department for Regional Development’s responsibility to determine what action must be taken. That is why it is doubly beneficial that the Minister of the Environment is sitting here for the debate and that he will respond.
Perhaps the heading of this Adjournment debate — "Future planning development in Downpatrick" — is slightly misleading. It should be "future development in Downpatrick", because planning will take place, except in certain restricted areas. Downpatrick is a growth town and part of that regional plan development that is so often referred to for the expansion of the population and, therefore, for the necessary attributes to accommodate that population, be it houses, recreation, water, roads or sewerage.
Since March 2002, a moratorium has been placed on the Planning Service, preventing it from granting any planning permission for developments that may be connected to the main sewage disposal system in Downpatrick. There is a dispute about whether that moratorium constitutes a directive or advice; however, its effect is that no planning permission will be granted for dwellings or other buildings that would connect to the sewerage system.
The growth and development of Downpatrick has been jeopardised because of the apparent inability of the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development to resolve the crisis. I say "apparent" because I do not know what is going on behind the scenes. All planning applications, individual or composite, that involve the sewerage system are prohibited.
A ministerial reply from the Department of the Environment, dated 15 May, stated that the water management unit of the Environment and Heritage Service, which pulled the plug on planning permissions, had not issued a directive. If that is the case, I do not know what it did issue. I found out about the problem because of my interest in an application by Habitat for Humanity, the charitable housing organisation for low-income families, to build 14 residences in the Colmcille Road area of Downpatrick. That was the first time that I heard that the water management unit had imposed a directive or made an input to the planning process. It advised Habitat for Humanity not to proceed with the planning application. Immediately afterwards, a moratorium was placed on all other developments. That may not have been official policy, but it is the situation.
Whether other directives have been, or will be, issued will be revealed during the debate. The moratorium affects not only those applying for planning permission for a new house and charities such as Habitat for Humanity, but any commercial or industrial enterprise that would need to connect to the sewerage system. It has wide-ranging implications for the immediate development of the town, because all planning permission has been stopped. One would have expected a warning that the danger point was being reached, or at least an amber light between the green and the red. However, permission was given on one day, and on the next it was not.
I embarked on a series of Assembly questions, including written priority questions, to the Ministers involved. The Department for Regional Development deals with the sewerage system, and the Department of the Environment deals with water and quality control and the Planning Service. It is an interdepartmental problem. I was amazed by the first response of the Minister for Regional Development when he said that there was abundant space and capacity in the sewage treatment works in Downpatrick and that there was no problem.
I then got information that the Department of the Environment’s water management unit had advised that permission should not be granted for a particular plan. The Departments should have handled those matters. They have discovered that the problem was not caused by the output, but by the input from the sewage treatment works. There is, apparently, a subtle difference. Waste that is not treated at all remains raw sewage, and the quality of treated sewage varies. The inlet to the treatment works was defective, and at certain times blocked, causing a run-off of raw sewage into the Quoile estuary and basin, which is unpleasant for the local population, land and riparian residences.
According to the Minister of the Environment, his officials and those from the Department for Regional Development will discuss what short- and long-term measures the latter should take to address the problem. In his written answer of 17 May to my question AQW 3548/01, the Minister stated that ultimately
"it is the responsibility of the Department for Regional Development’s Water Service to determine what action needs to be considered in relation to the operational problems at the inlet to the town’s sewage treatment works."
Because of the urgency of the matter, I had to elicit further information from the Minister for Regional Development in the form of a priority written answer to question AQW 3472/01. In that answer, the Minister said:
"The Downpatrick Waste Water Treatment Works is not overloaded. There is spare treatment capacity within the Works and the effluent discharged consistently complies with regulatory discharge standards set by the Environment and Heritage Service."
It is understandable why a layperson such as I could be confused. The Department for Regional Development states that there is no overloading, that there is sufficient capacity for the future and that the quality of the output meets required standards. Meanwhile, its Water Service tells us not to connect any more houses in the area and to stop all future planning and development.
The Minister for Regional Development further stated that:
"Aside from routine problems such as sewer blockages, Water Service has, in general, had no concerns about the operation of the local sewerage infrastructure. However, the Environment and Heritage Service has indicated recently that it has concerns about the inlet to the Treatment Works. Water Service is seeking further details about these concerns and will take appropriate action in conjunction with Environment and Heritage Service."
That response was given two months ago. I know that some action is being taken, and I have no doubt that the Minister for Regional Development will be able to give us an update on the results of that action. In his reply of 17 May to question AQW 3508/01, the Minister said:
"Preliminary work has already commenced on the installation of the new screening equipment at the inlet to the Downpatrick Waste Water Treatment Works. It is expected that the work will be completed within the next 4 to 5 weeks. The work will improve the reliability and efficiency of the treatment process by more effectively removing rags and other debris which have led to occasional blockages in the past."
One would think that completing that fairly minor work in four or five weeks would not have meant that it was necessary to stop all planning for that part of Downpatrick. The worst that could have happened is that a planning application, which in all other aspects was permissible, could have been given permission subject to a connection to the sewerage system in four or five weeks’ time.
Building takes a couple of months, so there should not have been any problem. I do not know why there was no practical management of these applications. The broader issue of great concern is why this was allowed to happen. Inspections regularly take place, and several Government Departments and agencies carried out their little pigeonholed operations against all the checks and standards.
I had the foresight, if I may say so modestly, to table a question on 10 December 2001 before the matter arose. In reply I was informed that construction work on the new sewage works in Downpatrick would commence in 2005 at a cost of £2·3 million — no panic, no worry, no problem. The original target for the larger scheme was 2000, which has now passed. Is someone, somewhere not giving us the correct information? Has someone allowed a five-year fallout from the capital programme of £2·3 million knowing, or not knowing, that there was a deficiency in the system? We would like to have answers to those questions, if possible.
Many questions arise from that incident. People who do not live in the area may wonder what this is all about, and the Minister may say that there are other areas in Northern Ireland with similar problems. If I lived in those other areas I would still be agitated, because, as I have said repeatedly — and possibly ad nauseam — it means a moratorium on all new building work in the centre of Downpatrick.
I have thanked the Minister of the Environment for being present, but he has said that he thinks that the Minister for Regional Development is responsible. If that is the case, the Minister for Regional Development should be here to answer the question. As a layperson in this area, I am totally confused by what has happened. The authorities appear to be divided, but in that division there must be maximum co-operation.
The salient questions are — is this a serious situation? If so, why has the main programme of £2·3 million for a new sewage works been postponed from 2000 to 2005? That information was elicited last December. In March 2002 there was a moratorium on planning, but was that necessary? What is the nature of the Environment and Heritage Service’s authority compared with that of another branch of the same Department? The Minister of the Environment, in answer to my written question (AQW 3548/01), stated:
"Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) has not issued a Directive to Planning Service but has recommended that no more development be connected to the Downpatrick sewerage system until operational problems at the inlet to the town’s sewage treatment works are resolved."
Is that a directive? Do the planning officials have to take that on board whether they like it or not, or is it their decision? Where does the authority lie; where does the expertise lie; and where does the remedy lie? He went on to say:
"These problems have led to unauthorised discharge of sewage to a downstream waterway, with subsequent water pollution."
I ask, tongue in cheek, who is creating the authorised discharge? The Department of the Environment, apparently. If it is creating an unauthorised discharge, does it not have an immediate civic responsibility as the polluter to pay and sort out the pollution? I am confused by the final part of the answer, which states that it is the responsibility of the Department for Regional Development’s Water Service to determine what will happen.
I hope that clarification is given on where responsibility lies. There may be a joint responsibility, and, if so, it must be made clear who is carrying out the work, when it will be done and where the authority for planning permission lies. Is it with a sub-agency or is it with the Planning Service? It must be made clear whether it is possible to have a sensible attitude to planning management. If the construction is a four- to five-week wonder — as we are told officially — why can planning permission not be granted conditional on connection to the sewage works not being made for four to five weeks or until further authorisation is given? The developers or the individual could then go ahead with the work and build the main construction, by which time the connection could be made. However, nothing has been done; permission has not been given; no starts have been made; the construction firms carrying out the work cannot keep workers on; and people who have arranged house sales and mortgages do not know where they are going. This is a serious community matter, and the current situation flies in the face of the regional development proposals for Downpatrick.
I thank the Minister for being present, and I look forward to his response. I do not have to go into details about the geography, because as a co-representative of the area, he is familiar with the problem. I would not like to think that his interest was inhibited because he represents the area. There is an inverted idea that because one represents an area, one has to be especially careful. The same care must be exercised as with any other area. I expect a fulsome, favourable and open reply from the Minister.

Mr Jim Wells: I share some of Mr McGrady’s confusion. However, what we face today exposes a major weakness in the procedures of the House. Two Ministers are involved directly: the Minister for Regional Development, Mr Peter Robinson, and the Minister of the Environment, Mr Nesbitt. Why do we not have procedures that allow both Ministers to respond to Adjournment debates when there is a clear cross-cutting of responsibilities for the issue being discussed? I have raised this matter several times. I raised it during the debate on sheep grazing in the Mournes, where half the responsibility lay with the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and the other half lay with the Minister for Regional Development. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development stated that she could not answer some of my questions because they were not her responsibility, and she referred them to the Minister for Regional Development. That is not good enough. Flexibility is necessary if we are to have joined-up government in this Province. When there is a division of responsibility, both Ministers should be present.
The wording of Mr McGrady’s motion is unhelpful. I read the local papers, and I read every word of Mr McGrady’s that is published — that takes quite some time. I hope that he reads the small, succinct paragraphs that I write occasionally.
I was fully aware of what he was getting at when he tabled the subject for this Adjournment debate. However, the heading "Future planning development in Downpatrick" could have referred to the delay in the publication of the Down/Ards area plan. It could have referred to the implementation of the regional development strategy, or it could have related to a specific planning issue. Unless one lived or worked in the area, one would not know what the debate was intended to be about purely from the wording of the title. Perhaps that is why the Minister of the Environment is present rather than the Minister for Regional Development. I do not know. Certainly, only those on the ground could have been fully aware of what MrMcGrady was referring to in the title. I have a policy: I will always give way at any stage if a Member wishes to challenge me on this or any other issue.
For many years in Northern Ireland we complained about the gamekeeper-and-poacher problem with the Department of the Environment. The Department of the Environment was huge. It was the "Department of Everything". It was a vast empire, ranging from roads to planning to housing, and so on. The permanent secretary had vast influence throughout the Province, because the Department of the Environment had an input into practically everything that happened in Northern Ireland. It was, therefore, perfectly correct that the functions of the Department were separated and that its size was divided.
That achieved a division in the gamekeeper-and-poacher problem. Now, responsibility for water quality monitoring is entirely in the hands of the Department of the Environment’s Environment and Heritage Service, while the provision of water services, sewerage systems and water supply is in the hands of the Department for Regional Development. When a problem with water quality arises, the Department of the Environment can now, at least, take action — because it is not worried that its permanent secretary will be breathing down its neck, saying that it cannot take action because it is responsible for the pollution. I welcome that, but the problem is that it leads to a situation in which one Department blames the other.
I attended Down District Council’s meeting last night. The Minister of the Environment addressed the meeting. Many councillors were hopping mad about this problem, and they were venting forth about it. On several occasions the Minister rightly pointed out that particular aspects of the issue were not his Department’s responsibility and that they were the responsibility of the Department for Regional Development. The Minister for Regional Development was not present, and, of course, only one Minister is present this evening.
We are, however, agreed that the Environment and Heritage Service’s perception of water quality in relation to the sewage works is having a dramatic impact on development in Downpatrick. Development in areas such as ScotchStreet, FollyLane, ModelFarm, QuoileRoad, MallardRoad and a large swathe of ArdglassRoad and SaulStreet has been stopped as a result of the problem. One of those applications is for no fewer than 214dwellings. Another is for 26dwellings, and a further one is for 12semi-detached and two detached houses.
I feel particularly sorry for Habitat for Humanity — a charitable-based organisation that encourages co-operative work throughout the world. It encourages communities to have a stake in their area and to work as volunteers in building houses. It has achieved funding for its development in ModelFarm, but that funding depends on planning permission’s being granted. If permission is not granted soon, the funding could be lost and the entire scheme cast into doubt.
If that happened in any other part of Northern Ireland, people would raise a stink, and rightly so. It is unfortunate that it is happening in Downpatrick, which has had other problems in recent years, such as traffic congestion in the town. It is the last thing that Downpatrick needs. Until the problem is sorted out, development cannot take place there. The companies involved cannot continue to keep staff doing nothing on their books. We are rapidly approaching the stage where there could be redundancies or lay-offs. Action must, therefore, be taken.
I read with interest the response given to MrMcGrady’s questions by the Minister for Regional Development. Somebody has clearly got it wrong. Either there has been a small hiccup in the provision of sewage facilities in Downpatrick that will be overcome in six or seven weeks or there is a major problem, identified by Environment and Heritage Service (EHS), that could hold things up for years.
The Department for Regional Development has said that the Water Service has already arranged for manual screens to be replaced at the inlet to the sewage works. It says that that work will be completed in the next six weeks and will satisfy EHS’s concerns, enabling development restrictions to be lifted. If that is true, it is an inconvenience that causes some difficulty, but it is an inconvenience that will be completely sorted out within a few weeks. The builders will be able to continue building, the green forms will start flowing from Mr Clarke’s office in Rathkeltair House and everyone will be happy.
At last night’s council meeting, I suggested to Mr Nesbitt that a negative condition could be attached to planning approvals. In other words, planning approvals would continue to be given on condition that the housing development was not connected to Downpatrick sewage works until the problem had been resolved.
As Mr McGrady said, there are many examples of houses taking six or seven months to be built, and connection to the sewage works can be left to the last. When the problem is sorted out, all houses will have been connected, the negative condition will have been adhered to and everyone will be happy. At last night’s council meeting, Mr Nesbitt replied that that would set a dangerous precedent because of what could happen were the problem not resolved in the next six to eight weeks. He said that it sets a dangerous precedent to give planning permission, only to find that houses cannot be connected to the sewage works.
If there is the remotest possibility that the problem cannot be solved in six to eight weeks, we shall face big problems in Downpatrick. It will be a major headache, to which I do not know the solution.
It was suggested that the developers could contribute their own money towards providing an alternative sewage works, or that they could even give money to the Department to help bring the existing sewage works up to standard. The difficulty is that the developers have purchased land, applied for planning permission and done their costings on the basis that houses will be directly connected to the sewage works. None of them would be in a position to develop an alternative solution to what is a difficult problem. As taxpayers and ratepayers, they would rightly expect the Department to complete the work and pick up the bill.
Is the problem simply a breakdown in communication between the two Departments? Have the two Departments not worked out what is wrong and when it will be fixed? If the first scenario is correct, the problem will have blown over by the end of June. If the second scenario is correct, Downpatrick will be completely blighted for planning approvals for many months and years to come. Therefore, there must be clarity. However, that is difficult to achieve in the absence of both Ministers. The reason that they are not present is not their fault, but the fault of the procedures of the House.
I want Mr Nesbitt to clarify whether EHS’s representations to Planning Service suggested that the service was not happy with the situation and wanted something done about it, or whether EHS said that under no circumstances should any planning permission be given if it would lead to further problems at Downpatrick sewage works. The planners seem to indicate that the recommendation was extremely strong, but other material that I have seen indicates that it was more of an aspiration about the preferred way for business to be conducted. We need clarification on that point.
Urgency is essential. Planning development is one of the biggest difficulties facing Planning Service in south Down and must be given absolute priority. I am concerned when I am told that the matter will be sorted out in four weeks, and then six weeks, only to be told two weeks later that it will be another four weeks. Down district has been allocated 7,750 new homes under the regional development strategy. To ensure that Downpatrick has the critical mass, and to address its underperformance as the main town in the district, it is absolutely vital that the bulk of those new houses are sited in the Downpatrick area. The problem calls into question whether the new houses can be built in the area. Clarity and urgency are necessary. The Committee on Procedures must examine the matter so that we do not face a similar problem in several months’ time, blaming someone else because only one Minister can be on the Floor of the House at a time.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Adjournment debate has been a little misleading. Although I live some distance from Downpatrick, I represent the area. I wish to see its sewerage scheme being sorted out, but we must be wary that planning permission is not pushed through without proper water and sewerage systems in place to provide acceptable living conditions.
Downpatrick is a growing town with a growing population. Proper facilities are necessary — as are the systems to back them up. All systems must operate properly. Houses should not be built without an adequate sewerage system. That has happened in other towns in my South Down constituency. My own town, Rostrevor, has had such problems for years. We should focus on providing housing in Downpatrick, but there is no point in building 700 or 800 houses where there is no proper sewerage system and water service. All Departments should co-operate to resolve the matter once and for all.
Planners should be given every encouragement to develop new housing, and their improvement of Downpatrick should not be hindered by poor water and sewerage services. Were funding in place to provide that housing it would be up to Departments to get their act together to push the Executive for the £2·3 million for the proposed sewerage system. It should not be left until 2005; it should be brought forward so that proper development of the town can take place.
Under the rural development programme for 2001 to 2006, the Departments did not facilitate the sustainable improvement of the economic environment and the social conditions in Downpatrick and the Down district. Although I do not call upon those Departments and agencies to begin a rural development programme for Downpatrick district, it is necessary to tackle social needs and inequalities in health, housing and education. Downpatrick needs those things: for years the town has been a wilderness. We must acknowledge that it has been ignored under 30 years of misrule. As local representatives, we can voice our opinion, involve our local communities and highlight Downpatrick’s problems. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I have noted some interesting comments to answer. I am sorry that Mr McGrady is confused; it is rarely the case, so I shall try to ensure that his confusion passes. Mr Wells referred to critical mass. The regional development strategy identified Downpatrick as a main town, and aimed to realise the potential growth there. As Mr McGrady rightly said, the strategy recognises that growth is not simply about planning. Growth of recreation facilities, business, administration and housing must be balanced. The town’s population drives that growth, and the strategy recognises that adequate housing is central to it.
Because the regional development strategy has identified Downpatrick as a main town, the developments in it must be consistent with the plan’s aims. We must conform to the strategy. The Department has not been negative about the development potential in Downpatrick.
The Department fully accepts the opinions of Down District Council. Last night, in an example of accountability and democracy at work for the people of South Down and Northern Ireland, I was happy to answer the council’s questions for an hour and a half. I am bullish and positive about what I am trying to do, not just for Downpatrick, but for everywhere else.
A pertinent point was raised. It is always good to have my written answers read back to me, which is why it is useful for me to read them before they are issued. At last night’s council meeting, Mr Wells stated that there is no problem with the capacity of the sewerage system in Downpatrick. I told him that I agree. Mr McGrady seemed slightly annoyed that the Department for Regional Development advised that there is abundant space and capacity.
The capacity of the sewerage system is not the issue. There is sewerage capacity to service 16,000 houses, of which only 13,000 have been built. As Mr McGrady argued, the Department for Regional Development also confirmed that there is spare capacity and that the level of discharge that leaves the sewage treatment works complies with recognised standards.
The real problem lies with the inlet to the sewerage system, and last night, Mr McGrady’s party colleague, Councillor John Doris accepted that. That is good because, if we agree that there is a problem, we can find a solution. The Water Service agrees that there is a problem and it has suggested a solution to the Department. As I assured the council last night, necessary steps will be taken to resolve the problem as soon as possible.
Mr McGrady sought clarification about whether the situation was serious, or the moratorium necessary, and he asked which body had authority for the matter. The Environment and Heritage Service’s water management unit gave advice to the Planning Service, on the basis of which the Planning Service recommended that planning should not proceed. Therefore, the decision to prohibit planning was made by the Department of the Environment’s Planning Service. As Minister, I could de jure exercise authority over the matter, but de facto it is left to other bodies.
The Environment and Heritage Service has the regulatory responsibility to ensure that water quality standards are met. The required standards have been increasing and will continue to do so as a result of European legislation such as the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive; therefore, the need to raise standards is more urgent. The water management unit of the Environment and Heritage Service knows when water quality standards have been breached or when there is pollution, as took place in Downpatrick. As the regulatory authority, the Environment and Heritage Service is obliged to provide advice on such matters to the Planning Service, which then makes a recommendation or a decision. If, or when, the problem is identified, the Department for Regional Development is responsible for implementing measures.
I was so delighted by Mr Wells’s statement on the matter that I wrote it down:
"If we are to have joined-up government in this Province…"
I welcome Mr Wells’s commendation of joined-up government in the Province. I thank the Member for that point.
As Minister of the Environment, I am often asked to account to the Assembly as the Minister with responsibility for the regulatory authority. In other debates, such as that on the safety of school transport, I was asked about actions that are the responsibility of the Department of Education or the Department for Regional Development. I do not have the money to implement the actions that were requested, nor is it my responsibility to do so. In this case, responsibility lies with the Department for Regional Development, which is charged with delivering the service. However, the Department of the Environment has a regulatory authority to ensure that appropriate standards are met, therefore that is why we are in this position. It could be argued that it is good that the regulatory authority and the implementing body are in separate Departments. I am not making a case in favour of that, but their separateness clearly delineates responsibility. I hope that I have allayed Members’ fears.
The Planning Service makes decisions on the basis of advice from the Environment and Heritage Service and other bodies. The Environment and Heritage Service was concerned about pollution and the increase in required standards imposed by European Directives. The Department of the Environment is the regulatory body, and it is up to the Department for Regional Development to implement measures. The best way to ensure progress is for officials at the highest level in the Department for Regional Development and in the Department of the Environment to identify and solve the problem as quickly as possible.
Mr Wells said that somebody has got it wrong: the Department for Regional Development says that it will take weeks; the Department of the Environment says years. Neither need be wrong. We know that there is a problem, so we must identify it. The Department for Regional Development believes that the problem will be solved once vents have been installed.

Mr Eddie McGrady: The Minister says that officials from the two Departments will take action in future. The Department for Regional Development said that arrangements had been made to install new screening equipment at the inlet to the works; equipment that is expected to be operational in the next two months and which will enhance the reliability of the works. Has that happened or not?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Vents would enhance the reliability of the works, as the sewage coming through them would be slightly purer. However, there would still be a problem. Discussions have taken place, but the problem has yet to be resolved fully. The Department for Regional Development believes that its solution can be implemented in a matter of weeks. We are less certain. However, I wish both Departments to agree a solution as soon as possible.
Pollution will occur where there are no legal constraints to prevent it. Pollution and its control are important; pollution affects not merely local people but the image of Northern Ireland.
We are obliged to meet increasingly rigorous European Commission standards. I would not be discharging my responsibility as Minister of the Environment if I did not ensure closer scrutiny of planning applications, especially if there are problems. This is not the only investigation in Northern Ireland; there are, I believe, eight such investigations under way — we must bear that in mind.
I hope that this matter will be resolved speedily to deliver the regional development strategy’s recommendation that Downpatrick be a hub for development.
Adjourned at 5.33 pm